
    Samuel Garland vs. John T. Hull.
    The chancery court has no jurisdiction of a bill filed by one person against another, to recover the amount of various open accounts held by the complainant against the defendant; some of which were contracted by the defendant with other persons than the complainant, and had been purchased by the complainant, and some contracted with the complainant- and his partner : the latter having parted with his interest to the former.
    It seems that the fact that certain goods have been furnished for the use of a particular plantation and negroes, gives no lien in equity on such property for the payment of such goods.
    Where a bill is without equity, and the answer thereto is framed as a de murrer ; and upon exceptions to the answer, it is ruled insufficient, and a pro confesso taken upon failure to answer farther, such pro confesso will not justify a decree against the defendant, because the bill makes no case against him.
    On appeal from the superior court of chancery; Hon. Stephen Cocke, chancellor.
    John T. Hull filed his bill against Burr Garland and Samuel Garland, in which he in substance states that Samuel Garland has had from the beginning of the year 1841, a plantation in Hinds county in full operation, called the Barrens; that Burr Garland had during that time superintended and controlled said plantation, as agent of Samuel Garland, who resides in Virginia; that G. A. Ware and complainant were partners in trade, using the style of Hull & Ware, and sold a large amount of merchandize of the value of $1156.84 to Burr Garland, as agent of Samuel Garland, which merchandize was bought for the use of said plantation; that Burr Garland is, and has been, during all of said period, insolvent, and said merchandize was not sold on his personal responsibility, but the said estate, controlled by him as agent, was relied on as security; that Burr Garland, as agent as aforesaid, contracted debts to Ware & Copes, and Wm. A.Ware, physicians, for services on said plantation ; and a debt to Seth Barrows, as overseer of said plantation ; that Barrows transferred his account to Wm. A. Ware, to whom Burr Garland assumed to pay the amount; that Wm. A. Ware and Ware & Copes transferred their accounts to Hull & Ware, by agreement and arrangement with Burr Garland ; that the account of Hull & Ware thus created against Burr Garland, as agent, amounted to the sum of $1569.09; that the sum of $1272.62 has been paid by him, as agent, leaving a balance of $297.47 with interest from the 1st of January, 1843; that in 1842, Hull & Ware dissolved partnership, and divided their accounts between them, giving each other mutual releases and acquittances, and that Hull took the account against Garland, and that he is the sole owner of it.
    The prayer of the bill is for an account to be taken, and a decree against defendants for balance that may be ascertained to be due to complainant.
    The answer of Burr Garland states, that he sold and conveyed the estate, called the Barrens, to his co-defendant in April, 1841; denies that he was agent or superintendent of the estate, or that the account of Hull & Ware was contracted on the credit of his co-defendant, but that it was contracted oii his own credit and account; states that Ware and Ware & Copes have not assigned their accounts as stated in the bill; that Hull & Ware would be indebted to respondent on a settlement of accounts; that the accounts of Ware and Ware & Copes were created, for the most part, before the conveyance of the Barrens by the respondent; insists that the complainant cannot sue in this form on any of said accounts, and that his remedy, if he have any in the case, is at law.
    The answer of Samuel Garland states, that on the 16th of April, 1841, he became the owner of the Barrens estate, and files his deed; denies that he appointed Burr Garland his agent; states that for several years he had a servant on hire with Dr. W. A. Ware, which forms an offset to his account; that he knows nothing personally of the various accounts presented in the bill; insists that the chancery court has no jurisdiction in the case.
    
      Various exceptions were filed to the answers of the defendants, which need not be more specifically noticed; they were sustained, and, on a failure to answer farther, the bill was taken for confessed. Several depositions, in relation to the correctness of the accounts were taken, and the case was submitted to the chancellor for final hearing; who decreed an account to be taken of all that had been furnished the plantation of Samuel Garland since his ownership of it, and that Samuel Garland should be charged with it. From this interlocutory decree, Samuel Garland prayed an appeal, which was granted.
    
      Wm. and Wm. G. Thompson, for appellant,
    After arguing the case on the merits, insisted that the bill showed be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. They cited Dinwiddie v. Bailey, 6 Ves. 136; Porter v. Spencer, 2 Johns. Ch. R. 169.
    
      D. Shelton, for appellee.
    The case presents several grounds of chancery jurisdiction. 1st. It is matter of complicated account, running through a long period of time, and involving a multiplicity of reciprocal demands and sets off. 2d. It prevents a multiplicity of suits. All the items we seek to recover by this bill could only be recovered at law by the following suits: Hull & Ware, use of Hull, for the goods, wares and merchandize; Wm. A. Ware, use of Hull, for part of the medical bill; Ware & Cope’s use of Hull for the remainder; and then to recover on the acceptance delivered to Burr Garland, the agent, we must have filed a bill. 3d. The proceeding was in rem against the estate and slaves by way of equitable incumbrance thereon; and if our account be sustained against Samuel Garland, we are entitled to a decree subjecting that estate, or the slaves thereon, to the payment of the balance in our favor.
   Mr. Justice Clayton

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a bill filed in the superior court of chancery to recover the amount of several open accounts. Answers were filed, which were also framed to operate as demurrers.

It is not easy to perceive under what head of equity jurisdiction the cause can be placed. The demands sought to be recovered are all plainly legal demands, unconnected with any lien or trust, which could give a court of chancery jurisdiction. There is no fraud in the case. There is no ground for the assumption in argument, that it is a proceeding in rem. The bill is not framed with any such view. It claims a general balance of account, and claims to have it satisfied out of a particular estate, but it shows no lien or incumbrance upon the estate, nor any right to proceed against it, which does not exist in every instance where credit is given to any one who owns property or estate of any kind.

The very exhibits, too, filed with the bill, defeat the recovery. The accounts are all made out against Burr Garland. Nearly all of them arose before the sale of the estate to Samuel Garland. They constituted no charge upon the estate. There is no allegation of any direct undertaking, upon the part of Samuel Garland, to pay them. He could not be rendered liable for them, unless by direct agreement in writing.

Exceptions were filed to the answer of Samuel Garland, and sustained to some extent. He was directed to answer over, but failed to do so, and a pro confesso order was thereupon taken against him. This order could not justify a decree against him, unless a state of case is made out by the bill, which rendered him liable in this mode of proceeding. We have endeavored to show that this was not done, and that the demurrer was a full answer to the whole bill. To hold that the court of chancery might render a decree in this case, would be to enlarge its jurisdiction beyond any known limit.

Decree reversed, and bill dismissed.  