
    KNOXVILLE: JULY TERM, 1842.
    Giddens et al. vs. Lea et al.
    
    1. A note given upon a gaming consideration is void in its inception, and a full, adequate and unembarrassed defence at law exists against a recovery on such a note.
    2. Where a party has a full, adequate and unembarrassed defence at law, and no de-fence was made at law, and no reason given for a neglect to make it, a court of chancery has no power to relieve.
    The facts of this case, as ascertained from the bill and answer, are as follows: Giddens on the 29th day of October, 1840, made a bet with Lea and Calloway, that the majority of W. H. Harrison over M. Van Burén candidates for the chief magistracy of the United States, would not exceed two thousand votes in East Tennessee. Upon this wager Giddens with Cheek as security executed his note, payable to P. Lea for the sum of $100, due one day after date, and Calloway and A. Lea executed their note payable to Giddens for the sum of $50. These notes were deposited in the hands of one Carter, to be delivered to the winning party. Calloway and A. Lea won the bet, and the notes were accordingly delivered to them by Carter. P. Lea having no agency in the transaction or interest in it, assigned the note of Giddens and Cheek to Calloway and A. Lea, without recourse on him.
    Calloway and Lea instituted a suit against Giddens and Check before a justice of the peace in the county of Bradley. The defendants were duly notified, appeared at the time of trial according to citation, and making no defence a judgment was rendered against them for the amount of the note and interest, on the 8th day of March, 1841. The defendants did not stay the judgment or appeal therefrom. At a subsequent day the plaintiffs took out a fi. fa. against the defendants, which was placed in the hands of a constable of the county, and levied on the property of Giddens.
    On the 28th April, 1841, Giddens and Cheek presented a bill to judge Keith, setting forth the above facts and praying an injunction against the judgment. An injunction was ordered and the bill filed in the chancery court at Cleveland.
    The defendants demurred to the bill, and the demurrer was argued before Ridley chancellor, at the March term, 1841, and overruled. The defendants, thereupon, had leave to answer, and filed a joint answer admitting the fact that the note was founded on a gaming consideration, and urging that complainants had full, ample and unembarrassed remedy at law, and had not made any defence, and that a court of chancery had no jurisdiction to give relief.
    The case was heard before Ridley, chancellor, at the September term, 1841, and a decree rendered, ordering a perpetual injunction against the judgment. The defendants appealed to the supreme court.
    
      Coffee, for complainants,
    cited 2 Kent, 466: 14 Mass. 322: 5 John. 327; 3 Wheat., 204.
    
      Gaut, for defendants.
    1 Story Eq. S. 117,105: 8 Yerger, 238: 3 Yerger, 187: 3 John., Ch. Rep. 99, Duncan vs. Lyon.
    
   Tukley, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a bill filed to enjoin a judgment at law, obtained by defendants against complainants, upon a note executed by them, the consideration of which was a wager upon the result of the last election for the presidency in the State of Tennessee; this consideration was both illegal and immoral, and vitiated the note in its inception, and constituted a complete and unembarrassed defence at law. It was not made, and no reason is assigned for the neglect. We will not encumber the chancery court with the trial of such cases; there is no necessity for such jurisdiction. If a party will neglect to make the defence at law, and is not prevented by extraordinary circumstances from doing so, he must abide the consequences as the result of his own laches. Decree reversed and bill dismissed.  