Page 27

101

Answer

The State of Alabama
Dallas County

In Chancery at Cahawba State aforesaid
Abijah R Rembert and Middleton H Hale
adms &c vs Adam D Brown. This defendant Adam D Brown
now and at all times hereafter saving and reserving to
himself all benefit and advantage of exception which
can or may be had or taken to the many errors
uncertainties and other imperfections in the said
complainants said Bill of Complaint contained, for
answer thereunto or unto so much and such part or
parts thereof as this defendant is advised is or are
material or necessary for him to make answer
unto this Defendant answering saith. That he
protests against the filing or hearing of said Bill of
Complaint because said complainanats have precluded
themselves from asking the aid of a Court of Equity in
or about or touching or concerning the matters in
controversy between them in the action at law
mentioned in said Bill by virtue of their agreement to
that effect with this defendant made in writing,
and entered upon the minutes of said Chancery
Court, which said agreement will be hereafter more
particularly refused to. Complainants have no right
to the interference of a Court of Equity touching
the matter aforesaid for the following reasons
This Defendant commenced his said action at law
in the County Court of Dallas County aforesaid
and the same was tried at the June Term 1844
of said Court and after a full and thorough
examination of all the matters of fraud and
circumvention and setts off refered to in said Bill (said
trial consuming from four to six days of said Court)
a mistrial was had. At the December Term 1844 of
said Court the said Action at Law was again tried
when the matters in controversy were fully
investigated and after an investigation of from four to six
days the Jury returned a verdict for this Defendant
for $3287⁷⁴/₁₀₀ besides costs. Complainants took their Bill
of Exceptions and sued out a writ of Error in said
cause to the Supreme Court and at the June Term
1845 of said Supreme Court the said Bill of
Exceptions was struck from the record and said
Judgement at law affirmed. A short time after said
affirmance complainants filed their Bill in the
Court of Equity sitting at Cahawba aforesaid the
allegations of which were similar to those of the
Bill which this defendant is now called upon to
answer. This Defendant answered said Bill and