
    Jesse Spencer v. Edward King.
    ■Oase on facts. Equity does not correct errors in the proceedings of the court of law.
    This was a suit in chancery adjourned here for decision from the county of Ross. The cause was heard upon bill, answer, and proofs, and arose upon the following contract:
    “ Chilicothe, February, 16, 1826.
    “Memorandum of an agreement made between Jesse Spencer and Edward King, of the same place, witnesseth that whereas Jesse Spencer has this day, employed Edward King in a suit of ejectment of Steele’s Lessee t?. Thomas Spencer’-s Heirs, which is tó be carried by a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United .States, and if there determined against the said Steele, a new •ejectment is to be brought. Now if the said King shall succeed ,in obtaining a judgment in favor of the lessors of the plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the United States, or in a subsequent suit in the Circuit Court of- the United States, then the said Jesse .agrees to pay said King five hundred dollars, and if he does- not .succeed, said King is to receive no fee for those services.
    “Jesse Spencer,
    Edward King.”
    '“Attest: Wm. Allen.”
    
      *The case of Steele’s Lessee v. Thomas Spencer’s Heirs, referred to in this agreement, was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, and there the judgment of the circuit court was reversed. The reversal was upon a point collateral to the merits, and the opinion delivered decided the cause adversely to the complainant in this case, and he refused to pay King anything on the contract. Suit was brought and a recovery had at law. The bill sought to enjoin this judgment, alleging fraud or mistake-in drafting the agreement, and charging that the true intent and meaning was that King was to receive nothing unless complainant succeeded in the object of the litigation with Thomas Spencer’s heirs. This allegation the answer denied. And the court took, upon themselves to decide on the proofs ; the testimony is, therefore, not reported.
    Creighton and Bond, and Murphy, for complainant.
    G-. Swan, for defendant.
   By the Court :

The proofs, in this case, do not support the allegations of the-bill, which are denied by the answer. No case of fraud or mistake is made out. The only witness present when the contract-was made supports the- answer fully. Upon reading his deposition, it seems to us impossible to come to any other conclusion than that the whole transaction was conducted with the utmost fairness. This conclusion is not affected by other proofs, as we understand them.

. The counsel f or the complainant have cited many authorities, as to the interpretation of contracts and the testimony admissible to explain them when written. But these can have no bearing in this court. The court of law was open to hear them, and a court of equity does not take upon itself to correct the errors of a court of law, if any are committed. In the present case, we do not perceive wherein the court of law erred. By the contract King was entitled to the stipulated compensation, upon either of two-contingencies. If the judgment was reversed he was entitled; if *the judgment was affirmed and he succeeded, for Spencer, in a subsequent suit, he would have been entitled. The first contingency occurred, and his claim to the stipulated sum became perfect, unless the contract itself could have been impeached for fraud or mistake. That is not done here, and if it were so impeached in the trial at law, it does not appear to us; if it did we could not rehear the cause. The bill must be dismissed.  