LITTLE VS. PRICE. 185

thority upon the question, it seems very clear, that the effect
of the injunction must be much more extensive than is conced-
ed to it by the complainant's solicitor.

The object of an injunction to stay proceedings at law, either
before or after judgment, is to prevent the party against whom
it issues, from availing himself of an unfair advantage, resulting
from accident, mistake, fraud, or otherwise, and which would
therefore, be against conscience. In such cases the court will
interfere, and restrain him from using the advantage which he
has improperly gained—and, as Mr. Justice Story says, "if any
such unfair advantage has been already obtained, by proceed-
ing to judgment, the court will in like manner control the judg-
ment, and restore the injured party to his original rights."
The judgment, then, is not only to be controlled, but the party
against whom it was unfairly obtained is to be restored to his
original rights, which can only be done by depriving his adver-
sary of every advantage which the judgment thus improperly
obtained gives him, and cannot be limited merely to restraining
him from proceeding upon it at law. 2 /Story's Equity, secs.
885, 886, 887.

Besides, it would, indeed, be singular, if a court of equity
should interfere by injunction, to prevent a party from obtain-
ing at law, the fruits of a judgment unconscicntiously obtained,
and should at the same time permit that same party, by a pro-
ceeding in equity, to get the benefit of the condemned judg-
ment. Suppose, for example, in this case, the Court of Chan-
cery upon the injunction bill, or the Court of Appeals upon ap-
peal to that tribunal, should ultimately decide that the judg-
ment obtained by Little against Price was obtained under cir-
cumstances which would render it inequitable in him to enforce,
and upon that ground, should decree a perpetual injunction;

would it not be strange, if the same court upon the application
of the plaintiff in the judgment, to give him the advantage of
it, should so decree. The court would be in one breath say-
ing, this judgment was unfairly obtained, and its extraordinary
power would be exerted to prevent the court in which it was
rendered from enforcing it, and in the next, that the party who
. 16*