BENTLEY, Ex'R OF BENTLEY, ps DILLARD
{"newspaper_name": "The Arkansas banner.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 1306, "word_count": 225, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9670000076293945], "ccnet_perplexity": [986.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
BENTLEY, Ex'R OF BENTLEY, US. DILLARD .4ppea1 from Cra7eford.

 To enttle a party to relief in chancery against q judgment at law, 1t must concIu- siyely appear that the judgment was obtained by fraud, accident, or mistake, unmixed with , any negligence on his part.

 The defendant at law cannot come into ehancery for new trial or relief, when there Is no special ground of surprise or ignorance o, important facts suggested, or where no eouitable ., ,,;,"camstanee has arisen since the trial at law, and whc2Ire he has neglected to defend himself with due oh,;gence III the proper placc.-(As held in Andrews vs. Fem ten, l Ark. R. 186)

 This rule, however, is confined 10 cases where the defence Is purely legal, and of ex- elusive common law jurisdiction.

 If court of law and a court of equity, have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter, the party may make his election as 10 the tribunal which shall determine the controversy, and cannot be compelled to sub nit to an adjudication at law, when he pre- lers going into chancery, but if he makes his defence at law, he cannot afterwards re- sort to chancery the court which first ac- quires jurisdiction determines the matter con- elusively between the parties; but if he make no defence at law, he may ask relief of the ancellor.-Reversed