
    *Daniel Gano v. Ira White and others.
    Injunction against judgment at law does not operate as a release of errors, where the order of allowance does not require it.
    This was a wrij; of error brought to reverse a judgment rendered by the conrt of common pleas of Hamilton county, in favor of the defendants, as assignees of Riddle. The defendants in error pleaded in bar to the writ of error certain proceedings in chancery, which they set out in their plea, and alleged that they operated as a release of errors, and to this plea the plaintiff in error demurred. The case was adjourned for decision here by the Supreme Court of Hamilton county. The facts of the case are as follow :
    The plaintiff in error was indebted to Riddle in a considerable sum of money, for which he had given separate notes payable at different periods. One of them had been assigned to the defendants, upon which they had obtained the judgment in question, in Juno, 1823. Upon others of the notes, Riddle had sued, and also obtained judgments in May, 1823. The plaintiff in error, then defendant at law, filed a bill in equity against Riddle and against the present defendants in error, for the purpose of obtaining an allowance, by way of set-off, of sundry claims against Riddle. An injunction was allowed until final hearing; and, upon a final hearing, the injunction was made perpetual as to the judgment obtained by Riddle, but dissolved as to the judgment obtained by the defendants in error. The order of injunction contained no condition, that the complainant should release errors at law, and no such release was made.
    Storer, for plaintiff in error,
    and in support of the demurrer, argued, that no release of errors can be applied where none is directed by the order of injunction. He cited Co. Dig., Pleader, 3, B. 19; 2 W. Blackstone, 780.
    Este, for defendants in error,
    insisted that the application in equity, the injunction, and decree, operated as a release of errors, the whole proceeding upon the complainant’s own admission, that there was a valid subsisting judgment against him.
   By the Court:

The plea must be overruled. It has never been held that a bill in equity to enjoin a judgment at law is of itself a*releaseof errors.. The execution of such a release is often, in some courts perhaps-always, made a condition of allowing an injunction. When that is done, the party proceeding upon his bill would be held to have executed the release, and precluded from reversing the judgment for error, although no release were, in fact, executed. But here-there was no such order, and neither our statute, nor any rule of court makes it necessary, that a release of errors should precede-the operation of an injunction. There is consequently no legal foundation to sustain the plea.  