CHASE v, MANHARDT. 335

to Manhardt, and not the sum due from Chase to Bryden. This part
of the answer is not a denial of the equity of the bill in that
particular.

It is true, that the present complainant had it in his power to
contest the suit more fully than he has done, and if he was con-
cluded by his neglect, there would be an end of the case. But
wherever there is an agreement to allow for payments or deduc-
tions, it furnishes a ground for the interference of a court of equity.
And so where a verdict is entered by surprise or mistake, the latter
of which is admitted in this case. And the Court of Appeals has
gone much further in relieving against the verdict of a jury, or the
confession of judgment.

In noticing the answers of the counsel in the suit at law, I have to
observe, that I am not satisfied as to the necessity of making them
parties to this suit; and if they were proper parties, they were not
bound to answer beyond what related to themselves. But as to all
the answers, in a motion to dissolve an injunction, the facts set
forth alone are to be considered as established thereby, and not the
opinions or conclusions of law drawn by the defendants from the
facts; much less the reasoning in them.

It is a ground of equity in the bill, that Chase was not bound to
give his notes, or make payment of the $6000 to Bryden, until the
previous conditions were complied with. The tender of value, &c.
on behalf of Bryden, does not affect this equity, inasmuch as it was
accompanied by a demand of the notes, which, after the attachment
was laid, he had no right to demand. As to Manhardt himself.,
(independent of the verdict irregularly entered,) supposing the
claim to have been such as could be attached, he had no right to
be put in a better situation than Bryden, or to put Chase in a worse
situation as to the debt, or as to the terms on which it was to be
paid. If the injunction should now be dissolved, after deducting
the excess in the verdict, as proposed by the counsel for Manhardt,
the complainant might be left without remedy, if the instruments
of writing, now filed, should be insufficient; which will be a ques-
tion proper to be determined on final hearing. But the complainant
claims also a deduction of the interest charged in the verdict; on
which, though it was not considered as the ground for the injunc-
tion in the order passed, he has a right to a decision, as it is not
admitted, but strongly contested.

This brings the case within the rule laid down in the suit by