St. Clair County IL Archives Court.....Beaugenon, V. Turcotte & Valois 1826
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/il/ilfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 February 9, 2009, 12:47 am

Source: Il Court Reports, 1819-1830
Written: 1826

June Term 1826

Nicholas Beaugenon, Appellant, v. Francois Turcotte and Francois X. Valois, 
Appellees.

APPEAL FROM ST. CLAIR.

A party who asks equity must do equity: and where a party signed a note for 
specie, supposing it to be for state paper, though no fraud was practised, and 
a judgment was entered against him for the specie value of so much state paper 
as the note called for, chancery will not relieve against such judgment as it 
is equitable.

If a defendant neglects to avail himself of a legal defense, a court of equity 
will not relieve him.

Opinion of the Court by Justice Lockwood. This is an appeal from the equity 
side of the circuit court of St. Clair county. The bill filed in this cause 
alleges that the appellant when he executed the note, was deceived as to the 
kind of money in which it was payable, and was also deceived as to the 
language in which it was written. When the appellant executed the note, 
neither Turcotte or his agent was present, and there is no ground to charge 
either ot them with any knowledge that any fraud or misrepresentation had been 
used in obtaining appellant's signature to the note. The court below, however, 
acting under the impression that the appellant supposed that in executing the 
note he had made himself liable only to pay its amount in state paper, have 
reduced the judgment to the value of state paper at the time it became due. 
This is all that justice requires, for the appellant was willing, and agreed, 
according to his own showing, to become the security of Valois for the amount 
of the note in state paper. It perhaps might well be doubted, whether the 
testimony was altogether sufficient to establish the fact that any imposition 
was practised in obtaining the appellant's signature to the note. But the 
court do not intend to disturb the decree of the court below, as we are 
satisfied that the appellant has received all the relief that he is entitled 
to, upon the most favorable view of the case. It is a well settled principle 
in equity, that a party who seeks relief in a court of chancery, must first do 
equity. In this case, neither Turcotte or his agent practised any fraud or 
deception. Turcotte was delayed in collecting his debt against Valois, in 
consequence of the appellant's signature being by him affixed to the note, and 
the bill acknowledges his willingness and agreement to execute the note, 
supposing it to be payable in state paper. It is then no more than equitable, 
that he should pay the value of state paper when the note became due. The 
imposition supposed to have been practised, in representing the note to have 
been written in English, could produce no injury; the real imposition, if any, 
consisted in representing the note to be payable in paper instead of specie, 
for which relief has been granted. Strong doubts are entertained by the court 
whether the appellant was entitled to any relief. The object in a court of 
law, in serving the process on the party, and filing a declaration ten days 
before court, is to apprize the defendant of the precise nature of the 
appellant's demand against him, and if the defendant neglects to avail himself 
of the means thus furnished him, of ascertaining the cause of bringing the 
suit, courts of equity will seldom interfere to protect parties from the 
effects of such negligence, when the defense is a legal one. The authorities 
to this point are numerous. 1 Bibb., 173. 2 Bibb., 192.

Chancellor Kent, in delivering his opinion in the case of Duncan v. Lyer, 3 
Johns. Ch. Rep. 356, says : "It is a settled principle, that a party will not 
be aided after a trial at law, unless he can impeach the justice of the 
verdict or report by facts, or on grounds of which he could not have availed 
himself, or was prevented from doing it by fraud or accident, or the act of 
the opposite party, unmixed with negligence or fault on his part." As Turcotte 
has not appealed, and as the court are satisfied, although the testimony is 
loose, that justice has been done, they will not disturb the decree, as 
pronounced in the court below. The decree must be affirmed with costs. (a) (1)

Decree affirmed.

Blackwell, for appellant. 

Starr, for appellee.

-------------------------
(a) Where a party, in an action at law, had notice of a defense in time to 
avail himself of it, but neglected to do so. He will not be allowed to 
litigate the matter in chancery, but is forever concluded by the judgment. 1 
Johns. Cas., 436.

There may be cases in which relief ought to be extended to a person who might 
have defended, but has omitted to defend himself at law; but such cases do not 
frequently occur. 7 Cranch, 332. Mar. Ins. Co., of Alexandria v. Hooper.

See Hubbard v. Hobson, and the cases there referred to. 

(1) See note to Moore et al. v. Bagley et al., ante, p. 94.

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases at Common Law and in Chancery, Argued and Determined in the
Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, From its First Organization in 1819, 
to the End of December Term, 1831 

By Sidney Breese, Counsellor at Law
Second Edition, with Additional Notes, By Edwin Beecher

Chicago: Callaghan & Company, 1877.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/il/stclair/court/beaugeno255gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ilfiles/

File size: 5.8 Kb