Fraley vs. Bentley, et al.
Surely no court can base equitable relief, either in specific terms or by adjudging damages in dollars and cents, upon such allegations and such proofs as are found in this record.
Wm. Tripp and Bartlett Tripp, for appellees.
Errors of fact and law cannot be joined in one assignment. To correct errors of fact the party aggrieved must in the first instance apply to the court in which such errors were made; and it is only when he has exhausted his remedies in the court below that the appellate court will take cognizance, and then only of the errors made by the court below in granting or refusing the relief asked for. (2 U. S. Dig,, 163, §§ 87, 90, 130, and 181, §§ 613 and 619; 9 U. S. Dig., 190, §§ 635 and 197, § 29; 8 U. S. Dig., 149, § 675; Ohio Dig., 123, § 41; 20 U. S. Dig., 351, § 68.) The appellate court in this case can review the errors of law only apparent upon the record. The cause cannot be heard upon its merits. It can be tried de novo only on appeal. (Ohio Dig., 169, §§ 60 and 167, § 33.) Plaintiffs could appeal. (See Organic Act, § 9.) In Ohio, from which state our 1862 Code comes, chancery jurisdiction is confined to the Common Pleas Court, from which appeal and petition in error is not allowed. (Nash Practice, 41-2; Ohio Dig., Title "Appeals," §§ 73, etc. and 167, § 33.) Defendants below made no objection to trial by depositions alone, and cannot raise the objection for the first time in the appellate court. Parol testimony is always admissible to prove the grantee promised to pay a sund additional to that expressed in the deed, and such a promise is valid and binding. (Nickerson v. Saunders, 36 Me., 413, approves Taylor v. Carlton, 7 Crim'l, 175; Simmons Wis. Dig., 232, §§ 74 and 270, § 18; Minots' Mass. Dig., 294, §§ 6, 8, 9; 26 N. Y., 318; 2 Abb. N. Y. Dig., 676, §§ 926-7-8-9 and 930; 1 N. Y. Rep., 509; Read, 514; 1 Abb. U. S. Dig., 220, § 13; 1 U. S. Eq. Dig., 317, §§ 281-3-5, and 453, § 565; 7 U. S. Dig., 159, § 135; 9 U. S. Dig., 131, § 91-2; 11 U. S. Dig., 133, § 79; 14 U. S. Dig., 158, §§ 81-6-7; 16 U. S. Dig., 192, §§ 86, 99; 26 U. S. Dig., 229, §§ 487, 491-2; 27 U. S. Dig., 272, §§ 526-7-32; 29 U. S. Dig., 281, § 487, 496-7.) By answering in chief instead of demurring, defendants below
