
    *Morrison v. Speer.
    July Term, 1853,
    Lewisburg.
    Executions — Equitable Relief — Adequate Remedy at Law. — A party claiming- that he has not been credited for all the money paid by him to the sheriff, on an execution, may have any injustice done to him in that respect corrected by the court from whence the execution issued: and it is not a case for an injunction and relief in equity.
    This was a bill by Robert Speer filed in the Circuit court of Scott county, against George W. Hopkins, to enjoin a judgment recovered by Hopkins for the benefit of Nancy K. Grigsby and her children. The bill charged that Hopkins had recovered a judgment against the plaintiff and two others, one of whom was insolvent, and the other had moved away, for the sum of nine hundred and fifty dollars. That several executions had issued on the judgment, and plaintiff had made various payments upon the last of them to J. W. Morrison, the deputy sheriff in whose hands the execution was put, amounting to about four hundred dollars; but that only about one hundred and sixty-two dollars was credited on thé execution. That he made another payment of thirty-four dollars to James Kane, another deputy, for which credit had. not been allowed him ; and that the execution had been placed in the hands of Kilgore another deputy sheriff, who was demanding a balance thereon much larger than was justly due. And making Hopkins alone defendant, he asked for an injunction to the judgment, or at least to so much thereof as the credits to which he was justly entitled would amount to ; that the said credits might be allowed to him, and for general relief. The injunction was granted as to four hundred dollars of the judgment. *Hopkius answered the bill, admitting that he had recovered the judgment, expressing his ignorance as to the payments made as alleged in the bill, and not admitting that they had been made : And suggesting that Morrison and Kane should be made parties to the suit.
    The plaintiff afterwards amended his bill and made Morrison a defendant, and called upon him to answer the original and amended bill. And he prayed that an account of the payments made by him to Morrison might be taken, and that he might have credit for said payments upon the judgment.
    Morrison demurred to the bill and amended bill for want of equity. He also answered stating what moneys he had received from Speer ; and alleging that he had other executions againsthim, and also fee bills and taxes, to which all the moneys he had so received had been applied, except the sum he had credited on the execution.
    The court directed an account; and the commissioner made a report in which he credited the payments made by the plaintiff to Morrison upon Hopkins’ judgment, leaving still a balance due thereon. This report was excepted to by both Morrison and Hopkins. But when the cause came on to be heard the court overruled the exceptions and directed the payments to be applied as credits on the judgment of Hopkins ; and dissolved the injunction as to the residue, with costs against Morrison. From this decree Morrison applied to this court for an appeal, which was allowed.
    S. Hogan, for the appellant.
    B. R. Johnston, for the appellee.
    
      
       Executions. — See monographic note on “Executions” appended to Paine v. Tutwiler, 27 Gratt. 440.
    
    
      
       Equitable Relief — Adequate Remedy at Law. — It is a well-settled rule that equity will not grant relief where there is a plain and adequate remedy at law. The principal case is cited as authorizing the proposition in Beckley v. Palmer, 11 Gratt. 634; Coleman v. Anderson, 29 Gratt. 427; Va. Min. Co. v. Wilkinson, 93 Va. 100, 22 S. E. Rep. 839; Lewis v. Spencer, 7 W. Va. 692; White v. Stender, 24 W. Va. 616; Miller v. Miller, 25 W. Va. 503. See, in accord, Haden v. Garden, 7 Leigh 157; Hudson v. Cline, 9 Gratt. 384; foot-note to Coleman v. Anderson, 29 Gratt. 425.
    
   DANIEL,, J.

I can see nothing in this case on which to ground the jurisdiction of a court of chancery.

The original bill sets out a single execution and *payments made to the sheriff in satisfaction of it, which had not been fully credited. No reason is alleged why the appellee had not applied, or might not still apply, to the court of law from which the execution issued to remedy the injustice of which he complained ; and there is an entire absence from the case of those peculiar features which induced this court in the case of Crawford v. Thurmond, 3 Leigh 85, to sanction the interference of the chancellor.

The amended bill does not help out the jurisdiction. It merely makes Morrison the deputy sheriff to whom the payments are alleged to have been made, a party, and seeks to have an account with him. In neither bill, is there any allegation of a want or failure of evidence, arising from the loss of receipts or otherwise, rendering a discovery necessary. No statement is made of any such mutuality of cross demands or of complexity of account arising from a series of transactions on one side and payments on the other, as calls for 1 the exercise of the jurisdiction of a court of equity. No obstacle whatever is suggested likely to defeat or embarrass the legal remedy. The case was a plain one for the demurrer, and I think the decree should be reversed; the injunction dissolved and the bill dismissed.

The other judges concurred in the opinion of Daniel, J.

Decree reversed, injunction dissolved and bill and amended bill dismissed, with costs.  