
    SAUNDERS vs. ALBRITTON.
    ['BILL IN EQUITY FOR INJUNCTION OF JUDGMENT AT LAW.]
    S Equitable relief against judgment at. law. — A court of equity will not enjoin a judgment at law, rendered by a eourt wbiob bad jurisdiction of tbe case and tbe parties, on account of more errors or irreg'ularities in the proceedings, wben tbe complainant does not im£>oacb tbe existence or validity of tbe debt on wbieb the judgment is founded.
    Appeal from-.the Chancery Court of Pibe.
    Heard before the Hon.N. WV Cocke.
    The bill in this case was filed by Ephraim-. Saunders, . against Joseph E. Albritton, to enjoin a judgment at law which, said Albritton had recovered against him in the cir- . cuit court of Coffee. The action at law, in which the judgment was rendered, originated in a., justice’s court, where two suits were instituted by said Albritton, against Saunders and one Striplin, founded on. two promissory notes. The justice having rendered judgments against-the defendants on the 14th April, 1855, Saunders removed the cases, by certiorari, into.the circuit court; alleging, in., his petition, that he signed the notes as the surety of Strip- . lin, that he had no notice of the pendency of the suits, . and that he was a resident of. Dale county at the time the . suits were instituted. The two cases were consolidated in the circuit court, but without any order of the court, so far as the record'discloses ; -and a judgment was there rendered, against Saunders and'the sureties on his certiorari bond, at the spring term, 1859. The complainant asked relief against this judgment, on the -following grounds: 'that he was a resident citizen, of. Dale county at the time the suits were instituted against him in the justice’s courts, and, therefore, was not liable to be sued in Coffee county:; that he had no notice of the pendency of the suits, until after the rendition of the judgments by’the justice; that 'the causes were discontinued after their removal to the circuit court, and were consolidated without an order of court; and that divers other errors and irregularities intervened in the proceedings. On final hearing, on pleadings and proof, the chancellor dismissed the bill;; and -his decree is now assigned as error.
    CüNNINGham & Eufítíst, for appellant.
    J. E. FloueNoy, contra.
    
   R. W. WALKER, J.

It is plain that, on the facts proved, the complainant would not have been entitled to an injunction, even if the allegations of the bill had been in conformity with them. On the return of the certiorari to the circuit court, that court had 'jurisdiction of the case -and the parties. It may be, that its subsequent proceedings were marked by gross irregularities ; but mere irregularities, no matter how glaring, do not furnish, of themselves, a sufficient ground for a resort to chancery. It is not shown that "the complainant did not execute the notes, mn which the judgment was rendered. On the contrary, his petition for a certiorari alleges, that he was a surety on said notes. There is no evidence tending, in the slightest degree, to impeach the validity; or the consideration of these notes; so that the existence and Iona fides of the debt, for which the judgment "was rendered, -stand unassailed. Under these circumstances, 'whatever errors may have been committed in consolidating tbe cases without an order, or in the judgment by default, or .in any of the other proceedings in the circuit court; and- whatever remedy the complainant may have, either by direct application to the circuit court, or by an appeal from its judgment to this court, it is obvious that he has failed to show any right to a,n injunction. — See Lucas v. Bank, 2 St. 280 ; Crafts v. Dexter, 8 Ala. 767 ; Secor v. Woodward, 8. Ala. 500 ; Hair & Labuzan v. Lowe, 19 Ala. 224.

Decree affirmed*..  