(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "A treatise on the law of fraud and mistake"

im^- 




-If 



AND IMPORTfRS 
1^0 3»W tHANCISCO e ft 





THE LIBRARY 

OF 

THE UNIVERSITY 

OF CALIFORNIA 

LOS ANGELES 

SCHOOL OF LAW 



/ 



//itv 



yd 



V V 



'b' 



tv' 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2008 with funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 



http://www.archive.org/details/fraudandmistakeOOkerr 



A TREATISE 



ON THE LAW OF 



FRAUD AND MISTAKE. 



BY 



WILLIAM WILLIAMSON KERB, 

OF Lincoln's inn, barrister-at-law. 



WITH NOTES TO AMERICAN CASES, 

By ORLANDO F. BUMP, 

COUNSKIXOR AT LAW. 



NEW YORK: 
BAKER, VOORHIS & CO., PUBLISHERS, 

G6 NASSAU STREET. 
1872. 



T 
K46nf 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in tiie year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, by 

BAKER, VOORHIS & CO., 

In Iho Office of the Librarian of Congress, at WasMngton. 



PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITJION. 



The English edition of this work, upon its first appearance, 
attracted the attention of the profession in this country on 
account of its fullness both in the text and in the citation oi 
authorities, the general excellence of the plan, the mode 
of treating the subject, and the importance of the topics dis- 
cussed. A work which thus presents tlie result of the latest 
decisions in England, ought to find its way into the majority 
of the libraries in this country, and an American edition be- 
came desirable. 

In preparing such an edition, two plans were open. One 
was to make a collection of all the authorities in this country 
and add them as notes to the original text. A work which 
shall embrace al I the English and American cases, is certainly 
desirable, bui the chief objection to adding the American 
cases, as notefi to an English text, is, that the notes would 
overwhelm the text, and such a result ought, in all cases, to 
be avoided. What is needed, is a skilful treatise which shall 
combine both the English and American law in one text ; and 
the writer who has the patience and the diligence to examine 
all the American cases, will prepare such a work rather. than 
make annotations to the text of some. other author, 

671441 



iv rREFACB. 

The present notes to the English text, tlicrefore, make no 
sneh :iHil)itions pretension as that of presenting the whole of 
the American law npon the subjects treated in the original 
text. Tlieir aim is simply to make tlie English work more 
practically available to the American lawyer. Some topics 
have been treated more fully than others. On some points 
the practitioner has been left to rely npon the English text 
alone. This result has been the inevitable consequence of the 
fact that they do not pretend to be exhaustive. It is believed, 
however, that they will he found useful in practice and a 
desirable addition to the work. 

Oelando F. Bump. 

Baltimore, Dec. 1st, 1871 



SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

Table of Ej^glish Cases cited , , 1 

Table of American Cases cited 21 



CHAPTEIl I. 

FEAUD. 

Section 1. 
Genekal Considekations 41 — 53 

Section 2. 

Misrepresentation and Concealment 53 142 

Section 3. 

Fraud to be presuimed from the inequality of * 

the parties; inadequacy of consideration. 143 195 

Section 4. 

Fraud upon third parties 195 267 

Fraud nj)on creditors 196 

Fraud upon marriage articles 215 

Fraud upon the marital rights 217 

Marriage and place brokage bondr; 220 

Bonds to marry 222 



vi COlfTEI^TS. 

Fraud in withholding consent to marriage 223 

Fraud in respjct of expectancies 223 

Fraud in respect of sales by auction 224 

Voluntaiy conveyances in fraud of subsequent pur- 
chasers 226 

Notice 233 

Section 5. 

Miscellaneous Frauds 2G7 — 296 

Fraud upon powers 207 

Fraud in the i)rcvention by undue uieans of acts to be 

done for the benefit of third parties 273 

Fraudulent suppression or destruction of deeds and 

other instruments in violation of or injury to the 

rights of others 275 

Fraud in setting up an instrument obtained for one 

purjiose for another puipose 276 

Fraud in assignments, by assignees, &c. &c 277 

Fraud by and upon companies , 278 

Fraud upon the Mortmain laws 279 

Fraud upon the law of Forfeiture 280 

Fraud upon the Bankrupt laws 280 

Fraud upon the restraining statutes &c. &c 288 

Fraud in awards 288 

Fraud in Judgments ... 293 

Fraud upon the Crown 294 

Fraud upon Courts of competent jurisdiction 295 

Fraud upon the legislature 295 

Section G, 

How THE EIGHT TO IMPEACH A TRANSACTION ON THE 

GROUND OF Fraud may be lost ■ 296 — 324 

Confirmation 295 

Kelease 298 

Acquiescence 298 

Delay and Lapse of time 303 

Purchase for value without notice 312 

Section 7. 

Remedies ^^'^ — ^^^ 

Remedies at law 324 

Remedies in equity ^^2 



COiiTENTS. vii 

Section 8. 

Pleading. Parties. Proof , 3G5 — ;'>95 

Pleading 3G5 

Parties 371 

Proof. 382 

Costs 390 



CHAPTER II. 

Mistake 396 — i56 

GENERAL INDEX 459—505 



TAULK OF I'XGLISll CASiiS CITI-l). 



ABBOTT I'. Gcrnlitv, 253. 

— V. Swonl.'r, y5, 102, 187, 188, 

:?():{, ;j;h(. 
Aberdeen llailway Co, v. Blaikie, 151, 

158. IGl. 
Adams v. Sworder, 158, ICl, 105, 106, 

348, 378. 
Adainson v. Kvitt, 41, 46, 54, 05. 
Addis f. CanipbcU, 146, M7, 301, 311. 
Adliii^jtou !'. Cam), '27'J. 
Adsfttsr. llivos, 138, 139. 
Artlock V. AtHeek, 440, 
Ai^ace, cx-parte, 115. 
Agassiz V. iSquire, 271. 
Anoarno v. lIo<xan, I'.iO, 192, 
Aiii.=lio V. Mcdlycott, 50, 08, 09. 359. 
Aitkon's Arbitration, 418. 
Aldborough, Karl of, v. Trye, 187, 344. 
Aldrcd V. Constable, 285, 
Alden v. Grefjory, 52, 
Alder v. Boylo, 435. 
Alexander v. Crcjbie, 423, 454. 
Aleyn v. Belcher, 273, 
Allen I'. Anthony, 240, 

— V. Davies, 192, 

— V, Knight, 141, 251, 234, 316, 319, 

391, 

— V. Maepherson, 41, 44, 354. 
Allfrey V. Allfrev, 51, 162, 161, 179, 306, 

307, 309, 311, 387, 
Alt V. Alt, 40. 
Alvanley v. Kinnaird, 408, 411, 412, 454, 

455. 
Alven V. Bond, 161. 
Anderson v. Ellsworth, 193, 387. 

— V. Fitzgerald, 42, 70, 72, 73 
Andrew v. Wriglej-, 316. 
Anon., 07, 100. 

— V. Mills, 289, 

Archbold v. Commissioners of Charitable 
Bequests, 383. 

— V. Lord Howth, 95, 97, 100, 

112. 

— V. t>cullv, 129, 302.305. 



Ardicr v. ITndsoD. 177, 178, 17G, 258, 
Ardglasse v. Mnsehamp, 180. 

— J'. I'itl, 1.'.2, 193, 
Arnold v. Ilardwick, 208, 272, 
Ariiotv. Biseoe, 14M,;i4l. 

Arthur v. ]\lidlaiid Railway Co., 3r>2. 

Arundel v. Trevillian, 221. 

Aruudell, Lady, v. rhi|ij)s, 203, 211, 

Ashurst V. Mil'l, 41'.», 4:54, 455, ' 

A^hwin V. Burton, 323. 

Askliam v. Jjarbcr, 208, 

Aspland V. Watte, 298, 300, 

Aston V. Curzon, 370, 

Atheiia}um Life Society v. Pooler, 297, 

Atkinson v. Mnereth, 262. 
Atterbury v. Wallis, 251, 200, 262. 
Att.-Gen, v. All'ord, 350, 

— V. Backhouse, 248, 250, 

— V. Balliol College, 340. 

— V. Briggs, 110. 

— V. Corporation ot Cashel, 162, 

— V. Earl of Clarendon, 158, 161, 

— V. Cox, 333, 

— r. Cradock, 380. 

— V. y.3.\\ of Craven, 346, 

— !. I>avey, 340 

— V. Fishmongers' Co., 307. 

— V. Flint, 240, 242, 312, SIS, 322, 

— ?'. Grote, 452. 

— V. Hall, 248. 

— r. Jones. 252, 

— V. Magdalen College, 344, 346. 

— V. I'argeter, 250, 

— V. Corporation of Poole, 366. 

— V. Kickards, 294, 

— !•. Sitwell, 418. 

— V. Stej)hen8, 244. 

— I'. Kerr. 340, 347, 

— ' . N'ernon, 355. 

— V. Wilkins, 313 320, ,321, 371. 
Atwood V. . 4<t4, 4:;4, 454. 

— I'. Small, 64, 7n, 74, 76, 77, 78 
93, .Si»6, 326. 



TAi'.i.i; oi" r.Nci.isii CASTS ( rir.i). 



Attwo«l r. MorrywcatliiT. 17'J, 37:1. 

Auriol r. Siiiitli. 'iS'J. 

Austin r. n.nmbiT!!, 159, ICO. 1G8, 209. 

Ill M t. 

— I-. 'rawnev, 200. 
Av.-llno V. M.lliiiish. 298. 
Avlot r. r.'\. :n''i. :;t'.2, :?«.'<. 
AvUtri- «• Miirmv. IM. l.'«rt. I.'i7. 
AylwuriJ I'. Kcnriicv, 17S, 19:{. 191, 301. 

Rll. 
Ayn'H (lis.'. 41. 17. f.9, 116, 333. 
AcGiimr I. Cii>c'lla, yj. 



BaOE. rr pnrtr, It'O. 
Bn;;K-li(.U- v. Wnllers, 09. 101. 
IJaicshaw r. Scvninur, 374. 
Ita^ucK'V V. llawley, 105. 
liailcy, cz-fHirtr, 

— ' V. Kicliordson, 244. 

— V. Wat kins, 158. 
linily V. Merrill. s:i. 
lJaiiibri;;;^L- r. 151air, 156. 

— f. Moss, 94, 12.".. 2.';i,SC6. 

IJakcr r. rraiUoy, 180, 181, 182, 301, 
344, 383, 393. 

— f. Carlor, 158, Ifil, 392. 
_ f. Monk. 143, 194. 390. 

— V. Uoaii. 305, 307, 391. 
Ball V. Mannin. 140, 

— f. Storif. 4'Jl. 
Bandon. Lord, v. Becher. 293. 
Hankart i'. lIoiii,'htun, 448. 
lianniTinan v. Wliitc, 70, 72. 
BarbiT r. Kicliards. 330, 
liartjnte r. siiortridgc, 278. 
Barker v. Harrison, 173. 175. 
Barkwortli v. Yoiiiif;. 89, 342. 
Barlin;: v. Bisliop, 2(t7, 208. 
Barnard v. lia',;slia\v. 279. 

— V. lliuiter, 105. 

— V. Sutton. 374, 375, 876. 
_ V. Wallirt. 132. 

Barnardiston r. Linjrood, 187, 344. 

Ilarni'-i v. I'rfcland. 331. 

BunRsLy t-. I'owtll. 93, 275, 352, 353, 

3.VI. 
Barn.-tt r. Slicffield, 323. 
Barnliardt v. UrccnHliiclds, 231, 240, 217, 

218. 
Barr r. (iibc'n, 105. 432. 
liarrark t'. M'( niiocli. 2o9. 
Barrett v. llarll<-v. 150, 150. 

_ r. \\.11».'210. 
B.-imrtfrtCa-c. 74. 93. 117. 11«. 
Barrow i-. llnrrow, 419, 423, 428, 456, 

— V ilri-i-uuw^K 275. 
Barry ». ( rut-Hk^y. 40, 47, 48, 74, 93, 94 

110, 3t',',», 374. 
BarUioloiiJ'-w r. Leech, 159. 



Barll.tt V. Salmon, 40. 02. Si, 257, 352, 
357. 391. 

— V. W.dU, 148, 
Barton v. llaxsiinl, 101, 

~ r. Vanli.ylluiyson. 195, 207. 233. 
Barw.U v. Barw.'il, 3i»rt, 3o7, 
Barwiok r. Kni:li>*h Joint Slock Banking 

Co,. 112. 123. 
Bnto I'. Bank of Kn^liiiid, 191, 
— V . llooner. 402. 
Batonmn v. Boynton. 430. 454. 

— V. Itanisay. 374, 370. 

— I'. Willo.\407. 
Bates V. fJrav("i, 44. 344. 

— i>, llowitt, 120. 

— r. .Inlins.m. 313. 310. 324, 

Bath A Monta-m-'rt Case, 241, 258, 884. 

Battorsby r. Sinytli, 288. 

Batty »', Chest cr", 377. 

Baxondale r. Scale, 67, 412, 432, 435, 

450. 
Bnvlis 1'. Att.-Ccn., 452. 
Bayly v. AVilkius, 171. 
Baynard v. Woollev. 379. 
Bavne v. FiTjxuson," 182, 302. 
Be'iden f. Kin;:, lOO. 102, 304. 336. 
Beadles r. Biirch, 3S0. 394, 395. 
Heale v. Hillini:. 10.'., 180. 
Hennland c. Bradley. 1S3, 194. 
Beasley v. Ma-rath'. 177. ITS. 179. 
Bcaulort, I)iikc of, r. Neeld, 407. 

_ f. Patrick, 130, 183, 

135. 
Beauinont, ex-pnrt>\ 101. 

— r. Bramlcv, 419, 421, 423, 

430. 

— r. 1V11,4I9. 
Beavan v. M'Donnell. 145. 

— «. Lord ().\ ford. 230, 207. 
Beck V. Dean. 278. 

— V. Kuntorowicz, 95. 172. 175. 373. 
Beckett V. Cordlev, 130. 131, 148, 261. 
Beckford v. Wa.ie. 3o4. 305, 3u7. 
Becklcy v. Newland. 222, 224. 
Beddocs I'. I'm;!), 20'.». 

BciUord I'. HaL::<lia\v. 373. 

Bedford, Duko of. v. Coke, 2S0, 

IJeechinitr .'. Lloyd, 47, 309. 

Beere t'. llofVineister, 209. 

Helm r. Burnesa, 69, 70. 71. 72, 331, 

Bt lhaven'.s ("aso. Lord, 4o4. 

Bell I'. Ihirke. 217. 

— V. Cnrc'.on. 199. 

— V. (Jardimr, 4oO. 

— r. 11.. ward, 140, 191. 

— V. .Mi.lluiid Kailwny Co., 130. 

— V. Simpson. 281, 282. 

Bellamy v. Snbim', 52, 100. 181, 811, 

330, 343. 357, 371, 372. .'182. 390. 
BelleW- .'. KusmU, 302, 312. 
BcU'ii CoMc; 333. 



TAMLi: OF KNCLISII C \Si;S (TI KI). 



BHoit. n nk ..f. v. I'.nilr, :j;;l. 
liutiliuiii I'. Kraiii', ^•■>il, '^I'l?. 

— V. I'liiltMl (Jiiaraiiti'C, «tc., Anso- 

cialioii. 7'». 
]-!eiiiictl. ex]ui,t,\ l.'.T, \M, l.'i'.t, KIO, ICl, 
If.c, Jiti, ;i.|y. 

— V. (;.)II.-y. .'Jdl. 

— f. Jiidson, 101. 

— V. Wale, r.2, HC, :j07, 880,888, 

Uenscn .•. IK-atlioni, ir.l, KU. 172, 350, 

\iT.\. 
Hentloy f. Craven, 172. 171, 17.'). 182. 

— V. Mackav, 1K2, l'.»5, 410. 421, 

•122. l-j:!, lao, 454. 
BcMVon V. Nettlcfold, ;{78. ;5S8, 
Berdoe i-. Dawson, 180, 182, 254, 301. 
licrnul I'. Lord ])()n('i^al, :ji)2. 
IScriiard's Case, 1 Id. 
]>cTrisf()rd »'. Milward. KJti. 
Ik-rry v. Arinit.stead, W.'.Z, IJr.O, 380, 304. 
Jiorwick, Mayor of, v. Murray, 238, 350. 
Bcsscy V. Windliaia, 204. 
Bevnn v. Ilabiood, 102. 
Bcxwi-U V. Clui.stie, 225. 
IVi^'ije V. Parkinson, 107. 
Bilbie v. Lmnlev, 402, 403. 
Bill V. Curi-ton,'230, 233. 
Billapfc c. Souihee, 152, 183, 191, 344, 

383, 387. 
Bills V. Smith, 2S0. 
Bingham v. JSingliani, 400, 454, 
Birch V. Blairrave, 376. 
Bird V. Fox, 25ti. 
Birdcall v. Uussell. 230, 237. 
Birley v. IJirley, 270. 
Bisco V. Ear! of Daiibury, 241. 
Bishop V. Cinirch, 425. 

— V. Countess of Jersey, 382. 
Bittlestone t'. Cooke, 212, 281. 
Blackburn's Case, 90. 
Blackford v. Christian, 146. 
Blackhall v. Coombs. 407. 

Blackie v. Clarke, 189, 192, 254, 312, 
436. 

HlackK.w V. Laws, 239. 

lilagrave i'. Routh, 166, 168. 

Blaiu V. Agar, 47, 369. 

Blair v. Bromlev, 47. 52, 111, 115, 309, 
333, 334, 381, 382. 

Blake v. Mowatt. 95, 98, 99, 337. 

Blakemore v. Bristol and Exetur Rail- 
way Co., 373. 

Blakcney v. Baagott, 187. 

Blake's Case, 351. 

Blanchet v. Foster, 220. 

Bland, cr-partc, 281, 283. 

Blenkinsojip >■. BlonkinsDpp. 295. 

Blunnerliassclt r. Day, 162, 291, 300, 
302, 300, 310. 

Blest V. Brown, 122, 393. 



Bli>>Hclt r. D/inicl, 182. 

I'.lix.d !■. Kcll.r. 131. 

B1<ivi;'h 'J'ruHt, Jir, 15S. ir,2, 166, 173. 

Hiiildingliiri c. Langford. 161. 

Hold I'. lliilrhin.M.n, HH, »o, Hl. 421. 

liniiA V. llopkiim, 135. 

Booth V. Cicswickc, 167. 

Borell t'. Dann, 187, 239, 250, 258, 318, 

363. 
no'^nnrjuct v. Dn.Hhwood. 377. 
Ho.soii /'. .Statiiain, 270. 
Bi)th.iinlcy V. Sfjnin.', 306, 308. 
Bolt V. Siuitli. 190, 212. 
Boursot V. Savage, 51, 236, 259, 260, 

261. 
Howcn r. Evans, 44, 51, 312, 314, 318, 
320, 321, 307, 384 
— I'. Kirwan, 190, 191. 
r.ower V. Coop'jr, 187, 363. 
Bowi-3 J'. Fo.stcr, 388. 
liowlus V. Stuart, Oti, 261, 270, 298, 380. 
IJoyd V. Belton, 130. 
Boynton ,: Hubbard, 221. 
Boyse I'. Russborougli, 183, 184, 193, 

195. 
Bozon V. William.^, 142, 250, 251. 
Brace v. Duchess of Marlborough, 324, 

370. 
Brackcnbury v. Brackenbury, 375, 370. 
Braddick v. Mattock, 443. 
Bradford, Earl of, i'. Earl of Romney, 

421, 455. 
Rradley v. Busley, 336. 
Bradwin v. llarpur, 449. 
Brandling r. I'iiiuiiner, 92. 
Brandlyn i'. Oi<l, 316. 
Brcadalbane, Marquis of, v. Cliando3, 

407, 421, 422. 
Brealey i; Collins, 358. 
Brce I', llolbech, 104. 
Brennan v. Bolton, 136. 
Brent v. Brent. 125, 380, 394, 
Bridgnian v. Green, 51, 191. 
BrigiiS, ex parte. 302. 
Brigiiam v. Tillingliast, 213. 
Bright V. Eynon. 47. 

— 1'. Legerton, 300, 309. 
Bright's Trust, Ji<', 240, 252, 254, 255. 
Ijrinkley v. llann, 185. 

Brisbane i'. Adams, 224. 

— V. Dacres, 402, 403. 
Bristow V. Wiiitmore, 114. 
British Linen Co. v. Caledonian Insur- 
ance Co., 139. 
Broadbent v. Barlow, 236, 239. 
Brock well's Case, 340. 
Broderick r. Mroderick, 53. 298. 
Brondev v. >mith, 43, 187. 311, 36C, 393. 
[ Brooke'c. Gaily, 104. 

— V. Lord Mostyn, 126, 353, 367. 

404. 



TAiii.i; OF i:n(;i,isii casi-.s ( itiid. 



Urt'oki', I^nl, r. It.niniUlnvaili', 00, 75, 

^*J. 3.M», :{Ct». :u\\. :i'.io. 
nrookninii r. H«thM'hil.l. IMH. 
ItrookHlmnk i-. Stnitli. .HOl, <i:!0. 
Urothcrton r. Hatt. .JAS. 
Lroucliloii r. Hr.-u-litoM. 15«. ISrt. 

— r. Iliitt. l:H. 401, 40H. I'M, 
•I.M. 
llmwn r. Koiunnly. 171, 4'JO, •l.'.l. 
llmwn r. lirown, •JSS. 

— f. Ktl:^ii:rtoii. 1<>7. 

— r. Knnpton. 'J8J, 283i, 

— r. Mc.ntiroinfTV, !<•». 

— r. Tlioipi-. i:5U. 13i. 
Browne, AV, lt>l. 

— r. Cross. nO». 305, 310. 
Browning »•. Morris, 377. 
Urownsword «•. Kdwanis, 'J'Ji. 
Itnuntit «'. Morton, 21 1. 
Brunton r. Lislor. S2. 
BrviluM r. Brunfill, 4t. Oft, 372, 381. 
BuVkill r. Blenkhorn. 274. 
Bucklo V. Mitchell, 227, 2:10, 235. 
Bufp r. Turnir, 122. 
Bulkl.-y V. Wilford, 125, 171, 274. 
BwUock r. Downos, :;iil. -UiL 
Burke r. Prior, 100, 129. 

— I', lloperson, 123. 
Burncll, cx-p<trtf, ItVJ. 

— r. Brown, l'i;{. 

Burnes v. IVDnell, 74, 93, 115, lift. 
Burro we3 r. Lock, C9, 189, 333, 341, 

342. 
Burrows i-. Wnlls. 300, 301, 303. 
Burton V. Blnkeniorc. 382. 

— V. Kni-ht, 288, 291. 

— If. \Vo.jkcy, 182. 
Bury »'. Oiiitenheim, ISO. 
Busiihvf. Kllis. :;41. 

l?UHli.-il .•. 15usli(]l. 204, 2('.5, 2fi.%. 
Butcher v. Butclicr, 45, 209. 273. 
Butler r. Miller, 183. 187, 189. 

— r. Mulviliill, 147. 

— V. l>ord l'ort«rlin;;ton, 248. 
Butterwortli v. Walker, 432. 
Buxton V. Lister, 3(;:!. 

Byrne i*. Vivian, 314. 
Byrne p. Godfrej', 275, 



Cadma."* r. Horner, 94, 357. 
Codtnjan v. Kennctt, 190. 199, 201, 210. 
Cnillnud r. Krtwick, 209, 212. 
Cairnenms v. Loriiner. 127. 
rnlcraft v. ll'M-'iur-k, 291. 
Cidhizhnn v. Cnllnifhati. 182. 
Cnherhv f. Williaiiix. 424, 455. 
(•ttni|.l>e|| f. Klomin;;. .'t2H. 

— r. French. 453. 
- r. Iloopor, 145. 

— V. Leech 44 L 



roinjibell r. I'onnsvlvnnia Life Insurnnco 
Co., 101. 

— r. Walker. 158, 159. 
CniDjiion I'. Cotton, 2<t2. 

Cnne f. I>«.rd Allen, 105, 166, 168, 178, 

175. 
C«nn I'. Caiin, 297. 
Caniian r. Ueynold'«, 445. 
Cnnnoek \\ .lauiieey, 98, 259. 
Cnrew'rt Kstate, lir, 225, 202. 263 
Carev I'. Cnrey, 178. 
CarleloM . . Karl of Dorset, 218. 
Carpenter r. lleriot. 179. 
Cariniiael v. l\>wis, 04. 4o8, 429, 432. 
Carte r. Curio, 280. 
Carter v. IJoehm, 72, 119, 120. 

— f. Carter, 140. 141, 142, 234.256. 

313, 314, 310, 441,442. 

— V. Palmer, 153, 107, 108, 171, 175. 

344. 
Cnrtledce v. l!n<lboHrno. 350, 887. 
Cnrver i'. Richards, 272., 
Casborno v. Baislmin. 143, 150, 161, K.3. 

100. 179, 180. 183. 
Co.se V. .Innies. 138, 313, 321. 
Casey's Trust, Ite, 287. 
Casticlon r. Turner. 452L 
Caton I'. Cnton, 13('». 
Cutor r. Burko, 322. 

— »■. Lord Pembroke, 407. 
Cawdor, Karl of, r. Lewis. 129. 
Cazonove v. British Equity Ins. Co., 73. 
Cecil V. Hulcher, 374, 375, 370. 
Chttdwick II. Chadwick, 300. 

— 1'. Turner, 2t)6. 
Chalmer ••. Bradley, 159, 303, 304. 
Chauiljerlaine v. Aijar, 275. 

— V. ciuunberlaine, 275.. 

Chambers r. Crabbe, 18ii, 217, 218. 

— r. Howell, 182. 

— r. Minehin. 4 18. 

— t>. Waters, ItlO, 102. 
Chnnijiion r. Uiirbv. 1<>3, 16&, 160, 302, 

:;(i.'), 307. 31 L 891. 
Chanter v. llo].kins. 70, 107, 410 
Chapinau i'. liniery. 2<'2. 

— V. Cibsoii. 43H, 443. 

— V. Sj)eller, 105. 
Chnppell f. (ireLCory. P»4, 304. 
Charlesworth r. .lennings. 04, 65. 
Charlton v. Coombs, 352. 354, 380. 
Charter i-. Trevelvn, 173. 175, 300, 3^2l, 

310,311. 
Chennell v. Martin. 52. 
Che.slvn V. l)all»y. 100. 107. 
Che.stl-r >•. Spar-jo. 92, 1H». 3.M. 
ChcHterlield f. .lanseii. 43. 40, 297. 
Childerw i'. ChihlerH, 375. 
Chin:j I'. < bin:;, 447. 
Cholm..n.leI.y v. Clinton, 300, 304, 306 

307. 



TAHMO (U-' i;n(;msii casks (I'll;!). 



C'lmrk V. Cromer, 2'M). 

Cliurcliill I', (irovc, 'Jti7. 

Clmk i: llulljiiul. :;-r_'. 

(."Iiuiriciirdc, Miii'(]uis of, v. Ili-nriing, 105, 

:!or). ;'.u7. :!ll, :!l-j, :iiil. 
('Inpliiiiii I'. Sliillctii, 7f,. 
Clare Hall r. ilanliii;,', l'J",i, l:;:j. 
Cltti-k V. liur-li, JliT. 

— V. Malpas, I'M. :M I, :{71. 
Cliirko V. liirkiTs. ■{•17. 

— V. Coliley, MS. 

— V. Dickson, -IS, TJ, 91.', ;520, r,:iO, 

•.'>:w. 

— f. (Jrant. r>C,J. lis. 

— V. Mackinfosli, 7t>, 77, 78, 359, 

:!(•,(», :i!iO. 

— t'. Mamiiiiir, •!•">. 

— I', rarkcr, 'J.'l'-i. 

— r. SawytT, lIC, 19r). 

— V. Swnilc, 157. 

— 1'. Tipping, 95, no, 171. 

— V. AViiitht, 2(M, 2-n, '>o:>, 2\y.i. 
Clarksoii v. llanway, 190. 191, 192, 1585. 
Clavcriiijr v. Thomas, lilO, 

Ck-gir V. Ednioiulson, 182, 302, 305, 306, 

307. ;!12, ;i91. 
Cleland ,-. Lech, 342. 
Clements v. Hall, 182, 302. 300. 

— V. Welles, 'Ml. 213, 257, 317. 
Clermont, Viscount, »'. Tasbiirgh, 359. 
Clifford »'. Brooke, 373. 

— V. Terrell, 191, 192. 
Cliaon V. Cockburn, 398, 401, 430. 
Clinnn v. Cooke, 135, 130, 4 IS. 
Clowes )'. lU'jc^'insoix, 418, 435, 455, 456. 
Clunn, lie, 2S8. 

Cobbett r. Brock, 193, 254, 260, 312. 
Cochrane i'. Chainber.s, 209. 

— V. Willis, 400, 431, 432. 
Cock V. Richards, 223, 
Cockroft V. Sutclitie, 269. 

Cockell V. Taylor, 187, 190, 297, 300, 

322, 323. 
Cockerell v. Cholmeley, 297, 300, 419, 

442, 443, 455. 
Cockinc: v. Pratt, 298, 398, 401. 400, 4U. 
Cockshott V. Bennett. 215. 
Colbv V. Gadsden, SI, 82, 83, ^2, 358, 

359. 
Golclough V. Bolger, 344, 353. 

— V. Sterum, 317. 
Cole V. Gibbons, 2',i7. 

— V. Gibson. 191, 221. 
Coleman r. Jlollerish, 160, 107. 

— V. Riches, 111. 

— V. Wallis, 215. 
Colemerc, lie, 282. 283. 
Coles V. Ilulme. 435. 

— v. Jones, 322. 

— V. Sims, 235, 240. 

— «;. Trecothick, 157, 15?, 187. 



Collelt V. jMorrii^on. 421. 422. 
Collier V. Brown, ISO. 1k7. 

— V. JenkinH. 04. 302, 303. 
Collins I'. Archi-r, 32ii. 

— r. Blant.rn. 388. 

— V. Kvans, 57. 

— f). liar.-, 19(1, i;t3. 
Colombino v. IVidinll. 202, 282, 284. 
Colpoys V. Coljioys, 45;i. 

Colt V. Woolla.ston, 4:t. 44, C72. 
Colyer r. Clay. 4<ic,, rM. 

— V. l-'inch, 14(1, 141, 240. 251, 259 
Conyers v. Knnis. 94. 

Cook V. rrilcliard, 285. 

— V. Rogers, 280, 

— V. Wolton, 390. 
Cooke, (X-]mrtr. 287. 

— V. Jiurlchaell. 181. 

— V. Clay worth. 147. 

— i\ (J reeves, l'J5. 

— V. Lamotte, 1153, 190, 191. 193, 

3S0, 387. 

— V. Setree, 106. 

— V. Walker, 211. 
Cookson V. Lee, 259. 
Coomer v. Bromley, 382. 
Coope V. Crcswell, '_'14. 
Coo])er I'. Joel, 120,344. 

Cooper V. Phibbs, 346, 398, 399, 400 

401. 430. 
Copis t'. Jliddleton, 180, 190, l'.i9. 
Coppin V. Fernyhon'_^h, 241. 
Cordinicley v. Clieeseborou:;li, 67. 
Corlelt ?-."Radcline, 199, 2(J5. 
Corley v. Stntl'ord, 171. 
Corneforth v. Geer, 410. 
Cornfoot v. Fowke, 09. 
Corry i'. Crcniorne, 321. 
Cory V. Cory, 147. 

— V. Eyre, 142, 234, 321, 380. 

— V. Gcrtchen, 148, 382. 
Cosser v. Collinge, 249. 
Cotcliing V. Bassetl, 357. 
Cothay v. Sydenham, 251. 

Cottam V. Ea.stern Counties Railway Co., 

1.38, 142, 312, 314, 315, •^^^. 
Cotterell v. Purchase, 51. 
Coulson V. Allison, 182, 193. 
Couturier v. Hastie. 4:;0. 
Covcrlcy v. Burrell. 3('.2. 
Coward t'. Hughes, 4Ul, 454. 
Cowell V. Watts, 3o7. 
Cowen, ez-pnrtc, 288. 
Cowper V. Cowper. 275. 
Co.x V. Bruton. 398. 4o8, 414, 419, 424, 
429, 437, 4.^4. 

— V. Coventon, 210, 211, 254. 255, 362, 

39(1. 

— V. Middleton, 80, 358. 
Cranston v. ^Iar^llall, 7o. 
Cranston, Lord, v. Johnstone, 100, 3S9. 



TMU-i: OF r.NCMSlI CASi;s CITKD 



Cniwuliny r. Tluirnton, V'i. 

Crrapli r". \\Umh\. Urt. 

OiVini •*. t ulli'ii, •'<H'. 

CriiUaiul r. iK- Mnulcy. 47. SCO, 872. 

CrippH r. .Ii'c. »s\>. 

(V.lt I'. (Jriiliain, oil. 

l"r«i|1<>ii r. Mrntsliy, -I I. -10. 

l'r.'fl!« r. Middlddn. '.••J. 

rn>k.r V. Ma-tin. 'J'lO. 'J30. 

Crosby r. MiiMhton, 4'J7. 

Cross r. .'"prii.'s:"'. ^V 

(r.'sskoy r. r.iHik of Wal.-s. .'$73. 

C'rosskill I'. Howtr. 154, 150. 

lYowtlv »'. I>nv. )t''4. 

Crow f'. IJiillani. 14:t, 297. Mi. 

Cruiki-lmiik f. M'Vionr, 'Ml. 

CulKn r. O'.Miura. 243. 

Ciillii). Tnistce, »-. Jolin-^on, 07, 91. 

CuUinirwortli v. l.loyd, 215, a'J3. 

CuiiiIhtK'sii' r. l.aw.sun, 410. 

Currier. Coold. 4<t2. 

— r. Nin(l,'j:;H. 
Curtis I'. Curtis, :t70. 

— v. IVrrv, 288, 375 41t. 

— r. Priic. I'.t'.f. 

Curzon v. Helwortliy. 186, 191, 3G6, 882. 
Constance, v. Constance, 194. 
Cutis V. Salmon, 104. 

r>.\rnE r. Gor'^e.*. 4:)0, 454. 
I>akiiii; v. Wliiiiiper, 227, "iW. 
l/Ail iac i: D'.Ml.iac, 95, 154, 210, 341. 
I>alhy r. Tullen. 95. 
Dale." f. Uniiiilton, l.'{5. 
Dally r. Wonliani. :;I0, .lOo. 
Dal-tun r. Coat-wortli, 275. 
Dulv >•. Kcllv. 100. 
Daiii.-l V. Mitchell, 01. 
Daniels t-. Davison, 240. 
Daiin, V. £i>urricr, 129, 139. 
Dan vera v. Manning, 449. 
I/Arcv r. D'Arcy, 194. 
Darlev r. Sin-rieton, 183. 
Darlingt^iu r. Ilauiillon, 02, 81,244,250, 
257. 
— V. rult<^ncy, 444. 
DnuUfny r. Coikliurn, 51. '.i72. 
Davenjxirt i'. Slatroni, .■i52. 
Davey r. Durrant. ;;|t">. 
Davi.l-i.n r. Tullodi, :i74. 
DuvicH v. Cooper, 95, 98. 

— f. Davie-, hM), 130, 132, 178, 180, 

•.'■m, is'.to. 

— r. liltoh. 418. 

— r. .MBr».liall. i:'.4. 
_ f. Oltv, 375, :;92. 

_ r. Tliomo^2n, 317. 3 IS. 
DaviR r. Abrnlunn, 171. 

— r. Cluuiter. 125,434. 

— r. Dukcof Marlborou-b. 1S7. 223, 

344. 



Dnvis V. .Morier. 398. 401 

— r. Sli.piierd. 05. -132. 

— f. I,<ir<l Stratliiiiorc, 20?. 

— r. Synionds. 392. 

— r. 1\>U\\\. 209, '270. 271. 
Davison v. ISoliinson, 2f>0. 
l)avoe r. Kaiinin;;, 15ii. 
Dawes I'. Uctt-H, '^43. 
Dawson r. Coilis, :t31. 

DuwsoD i: Massey. 177, 17«, 311. 

— V. I'rince, 230, 239, 250, 812, 

3i:t. 314. 

— r. Saiiler, 2"<9. 
Dnv V. Newman, l.s9. 
Dearie, v. Mall. 142. 
Debenlinm v. Ox, 222, C92. 
Deere v. (Juest. 45. 

De lloiihtMi V. Money, 23.3. 

Del .Maie I'. UolH-lio,'449. 4:>0, 453. 

De Miiniicviile v. Crom|.t<.n. 73, 219, 220, 

De Mattos v. (Jibson, 235. 

Do Montmon-ncy r. Duvereaux, 297, 298, 

387, 391. 
Demly r. Cary. 120. 
Denno v. Litjiit, 73, 93. 
Dent t'. Bennett, 108, H>:i, I'."", l".'i, 

390. 
Denton r. Donner. 102, 189. 367. 

— V. Macneil, 8'J. 83, 87, 3u7. 
Denys v. Sbuckbur;;h. 397, 398. 436. 
Deposit ami Cionernl Life Assurance Co. 

1'. Ayscouiih, 48. 
Deltniar V. Metropolitan aud Trovincial 

]5aiik. 230. 
Dcvn3iies, V. Noble, 425. 
Devcnisb v. 15air.es, 275. 
Devonsldre, Duke of, v. I'glin, 135. 
Dew V. Clarke, 140. 
Dilkesv. IJroadmead, 214. 
Dimes v. Propriej-ors of Grand Junction 

Kailwav Co.. 102. 
Dimmoek t'. llallctt, 74, 82, 83, 84, 85. 

92, 303. 
Dinis.lale V. ITnnsdnle. 181, So'j. 
Dixon I'. Ilaldwiii. :i:il. 
Dixons !•. .Monkland Canal Co., 402, 403. 
Dobell r. llr.tciiinson, 04. 

— r. Stevens. So, 85, 93, 98, 326, 388. 
Dobson. r. Lantl. 102. 

Dodds ,: IlilLs, 142, 237, 239, 254, 812, 

313. 310, 3'Jl, 3'J3. 
Doe V. Alsop. 205. 

— V. Hcvun, 286. 

— V. Kvan.**, 453. 

— V. Kord, 388. 

— r. lb. wells. 3SS. 

— V. Lewis, 217. 

— f. .Manning'. 227. 232. 

— V. Roberts. 294. :;74. 375, 376, 451. 

— r. Houlle.l^e. 199. 

— V. llusbnin, 229, 230. 



TAIJU: Ol' I.XCMSII CASIIS ("ITKD. 



DorirHt I'. Emerson, t'.l. 77. .'ill. 
Di.l.iinii i<. Nok.'H. '.»7, '.iH. «'.••). 
])<.imii.-it /'. l!(Mll()r<l, 'JSti. 
])(iii;il.lsuii V. (;ill<ilt, r.l. \:\x, 142. 

])( vim I'. Frickcr, IMG, iil7. 

Dooliii (•. Waril, 'i'JI. 
Door V. CrCHrv. -Hi), •1'iO. 
r)ouy;liirt 1'. C'lilvcrwcll, IVl, "Iti. 
Dover f. I'.uek, 1">7. 
Dowell V. Di'w. l:;c., 'jitl. in. 
Dowle f. SiuiiiilerH. i:!S, 1 lu, :;,sr,. 
Dowiics I', (ira/.ebrook, 157, ir)8, 15".), 
1()2. 

— «. Jennin£i:.s. 217, 218, 220, 805. 

— V. I'ower, -JIU. 
Draper v. Corlase, 1 :iO. 
Draper's Co. v. D.'ivis, !Ofi. 
Drewe v. Corp, 0'2, ."01, Wi. 

— I'. Lord Norljury, 'Ji'ij. 
Drewrv v. liiwiu'n, lOii, 107. 
DriseoU r. IJromlev, 175. 
Driiill' I'. I'nrker, 419. 

Drv.len v. Frost, 234, 248, 251, 260. 

Drysihilc, v. Mace, 80, 82, 91, HOO. 

Diinlmr v. Tredoniiifk, 2134, 297. 

I)iin(l:i.s I'. Duteiis, 209. 

Duiuiaijo V. W hite, 125, 434. 

Diirautv's Case, 339, 340. 

Durham, Earl of, v. Lugard, 62, 339, 3G2, 

363, 431. 
Dutton V. I'oel, 275. 
Dj'cr V. Dvcr. i:>2. 

— V. llargrave, 79, 100, 339, 359, 
361, 362, 363. 

Dykes v. Blake, 63, 81 



Eads v. Williams, 293. 
Earl V. Stoekcr, 2SS. 
Early »'. Garrett, 327. 
Estabrook v. Scott, 314. 
Eustham v. Wilkinson, 261, 262. 
East India Co. v. Donald, 384, 389. 406, 
414, 454. 

— V. Henchman, 93, 172, 

174, 366. 

— V. Neave, 4(t6. 

— V. Vincent. 129. 
Enton t'. Bennett, 422. 

I'de V. Knowlc-*, 2(is. 
Edi^ecunihc r. Stranirer, 174, 2S9, 260. 
Ed^xiwortli V. Edgoworlh, 318. 
Edwards v. Browne, 350. 

— V. Burt, 187. 

— f. Glynn, 285. 

— V. Ilarben, 209. 

— r. M'Cleav, 51, 78. 100, 102, 

3:;:;, 346, 347. 35o, 390. 

— ». Meviick, J43, 150, 152, 165, 

166" 167. 170, 302, 391. 

— V. Moriran, 453. 



i;.|wardH I'. Tike. 279. 

— V. Williams, 170. 

— V. Warwick, hj, 92 98, 
I'.iiholtz t'. Bannister, 105. 
Ekins V. TrcHliam, S5. 

i:h»rd V. Llandafr. 98, 358. 

Elliott V. Ince, 145. 

Ellin V. Coleman, 333, 339 341. 

Elsey t'. Adnms, 394. 

I'.lwcs i: Elw.s, 4'J8. 

liiiiinerton c. .Matthews, 106. 

Kn-land i: D..wn.«, '.il7, 2ls, 219. 220. 

Ernest V. Vivian, 3o2, 30(i, 307, 312. 

Esdailc V. Lu Nauze, 51, 314, 315 

Espev I'. Lake, 152, 178, 179, 195, 236, 

254, 3.S3. 
Espin c. I'em'.jcrton, 237, 256, 259, 260, 

261. 
Estwick V. Cailland. 212. 
Ellv V. Bridi,'<s, 142. 
Evans «. liieknell, 46, 53, 137. 140, 149, 
277, 333, 352, 389, 3'Jl. 

— V. Blood, 146. 

— V. Bremridjre, 123, 411. 

— V. Carrin<;tun, 95. 

— V. Edmonds, 54, 55. 

— V. Jones, 433. 

— V. Lewellyn, 143, 187, 190, 193. 

— V. Fo'.vler, 69. 

— V. llichardson. 283. 

— V. AVilliams, 267. 

— V. Wyatt, 60, OH. 
Evel}-n V. Templar. 227. 
Evroy ;•. Nicholas, 14s, 382. 
Eyre, ez-/>arfi\ 161, 382. 

— V. Biirmester, 259, 298, 312, 321. 

— V. Dolphin, 241. 

— V. M'Donnell, 381. 

— V. M-Duwell, 266. 
Eyton V. E^'ton, 276. 



Fago t'. Dobie, 277. 
— V. James, 313. 
Fairhcad v. Southee, 412. 
Falck V. Gooch. 435. 
Falcke v. Gray, 1H7, 357. 363, 411. 
Falkner «•. O'Brien, 52, 185, 190, 379. 
Fallon V. Kobins. 418. 422. 
F'airbrother v. Gibson, 76, 77, 80. 
F'.ireweli i'. Coker, 398. 
Farier i-. Lane, 192. 
F'arley, cr-jmrle, 160. 
Farmer v. Farmer, 193. 

— ?•. Martin, 26s, 272. 
Parr i'. Sheritfe, 42S, 
Farrant v. lUanchford, ISO, i 80, 288, 

298, 302, 3113. 
Farrow v. Hees, 140, 252. 
Fcarou v Desbrisav, 209. 
Fel-'ale's Case, 339. 



TAiu r <»r I N(;i.isii casi'.s < rn:i). 



KtllowM r. lyonl iJwvilvr, ss, '.'I, ;i01. 
Fi'nton r, Urowtu'. S'J, h:i, !>WJ. 
Kor.t r. Hill. KS, H'lV. 
K.rnvli.>ii;:li V. l.o«»lor. 4«. '278, 355. 
K.rrars r. rhorry, 'H'i, 310. 
Icrrrs r. K»Tro»*, 1'.'3. 
l'<\v>tiT V. Tiirnrr. ;U'.2. 
Ki.'Kl r. Holland. 2:U. 
Vife V. t'lnvton, ■{{», 4r)6. 
rilim-rr. (';ott.4«. 1'.'2. :tSft, 
Finch f. Nownlinin. -I'k 
— f. Slinw, 'jrili, ;i2l. 
Fisher r. M.><>ii. KM, 135. 
Ki>k r. Snrhtr. 160. 
rit/^ri-raKl v. Fiilconbortj, 259. 
Fit/>imuif>n r. .loslin, 111. 
Flicht r-. liarton. 80, 92. 103, 244. 255, 
" 257. 

— f. Booth. 50. 63,92. 243. 

Flint V. Wixxlin. SI, 91. 92, 94, 99, 225. 

Fl<x>k f. .Tones, 2S5. 

Foley V. Hill. 304. 

Fonnerau v. Toyntz, 452. 

Forbes v. Uoss, 156. 

Ford V. llarrin-ton. 375, 378. 

_ t'. Olden. 162. 194. 

_ r. White. 266, 321. 
Fortcblow I'. Sliirley, 103. 
Foster, 7.V. 166. 

— r. Hliiek-'lone, 142. 

— r. Chnrles. 56, 325. 

Fowkes V. Miiuchgster and London Life 

Assurance Co. 121. 
Fowler V. Fowler, 421. 422. 423. 
V. Scottish Fquiliible Life As- 
surance Society, 424. 4.>5. 
Fox f. Mrtcreth, 97, 15S," 180, 349. 
Fox's Ca.S"'. 351. 
Frail v. Ellis. 240. 249. 260, 
Franks t-. Hollans. 158, 307. 

— V. Weaver. 43. 
Frascr v. Lew, 282, 

— f. Th-.mpson, 189. 202, 284. 
Frazer t-. Jones, 137, 321, 322. 
Fn-er r. lles^^e, 267. 

French r. French. 199, 200, 204, 205. 
Frost f. Hrewer, 361. 
Frowd, rj--/KiW«', 116. 
Fuller t'. Ahrnhains, 224. 

— V. IJinnetl, 259, 260. 

— V. Wilson. 326. 
Fyler r. Fykr, 391. 



Hale t-. I,indo,216. 342. 
— t'. WilHumMon r.t9. 
Galloway r. Corporation of London, 164. 
Oalton t'. Kniu-s, 221. 
Gardner v. (J«rdn<T, 147, 194, IVS. 

— v. ()({«l<'n, 175. 
Garrard r. Frankel, 413, 410, 438, 455. 



(iarrnrd v. Urinlin;;. 417, 456. 
(iar->tin. rzpnrti-, 278. 
(;nrth V. Cotton. 43. lt'5. 379. 
(tartMidu V. (Snrt.side. 291. 

— r. Inherwood. 146. 180, 18T. 
Oarvev r. .MMinn. 170. 19o. lyn. 
Cnskrll f. Chambers, 162. 

(Ja-s Li;;hl and Coke Co. v. Turner. 388. 
(leddes v. I'enninijton. 711, 74. 
(;edi;e V. l>uke ol .Montr'•^e. 39o. 
General Steam Navi;^ation Co. v. Kolts 

2::8, 2:i9. 254. 
Gerard v. O'Keilly. 129. 260. 
(ierhard «■. Bates" 54. 326. 
Gibbins v. Philips, 2S5. 
Gibbons v. Caunt. 124. 
Gibbs V. Daniel. 165, 167. 170, 387. 
Gibson v. l/Kstc, 63, 346, 348, 350, S90. 

— r. (Joldsuiiil, 335. 

— V. Injjo, 252. 

— r. .leyes, 151, 104, 165, 168, 187. 

380. 
Gibson v. Uussell, 190, 191, 192. 

— V. Spurrier. 103. 
Gibson's Ca.se. 1 16. 
(iiddings r. Giddinij^s. 151, 182. 
CJilbert v. Lewis. :;66, :i80. 394. 
(;ile3 r. Giles, 354, 449,451. 
GLllett r. reppercorii, 174, 175, 306. 
Ginger, fj--y"i»-/', 114. 

Glascott V. Lainir, 3S3. 
(Masse v. Marshall, 4:f. 
Glvn e. Hank of Kngl.nd. 388. 
Go'blett r. liecli.-y, U'.o, 453. 
Goddard «•. Carlisle, 17". 

— t'. Snow, 217. 2 IS. 
Gol.licutt V. Townsrnd. 7:'., 202. 
Goldsmith v. Hruiiini;, 221. 

— f. Uu-.sell. 199. 
Gompertz i*. Hartlett, 5S. 

— V. Denton, :H2S. 
Goodman i-. Snyers, 2S9, 4t)2, 447. 
Guodricke v. IJrowiie, 277. 

— V. Taylor, 282, 283. 
Goram v. Sweeting, 69. 

Gordon. Lord, r. Manjuis of Hertford, 

417. 
Gordon r. (;ord.>n, 121. 12.'., 4t»l, 434. 

— I'. I'armi'li'e, 77, 84. 

— V. Shaw, 37". 
(iore, rz-/i<irlr, 161. 

— t'. (iilison, 147. 

_ i-. Stjickpoole, 317, 318. 
Gorsuch 1'. Cn-e, 62. 
(Josh f. Lord Nugi-nt, 410. 
(Jovett V. Uii'hmnntl, 131, 
tJowland v. D.- laria, 187, 297, 801. 
(ioymour v. I'igge, 125. 
Graham r. Chapman. 2S1. 282, 283 

— t'. ()'K-i>fe, 21 K), 206, 208. 
Grunt V. Campbell, 240. 



TAiw-r: or r.Ncr.isii r\s!:s citi:i). 



Mn-- 
anoa- 



137, 



007, 



304, 



(Jrant i-. Mnnt, K<>. 100. uri'.t, ;JC.1. 
(irny i'. (Iiitwcll, '12.'>. 
(.iruzi'liriHtk v. I'crcival, 'J'JO. 
(•rent I^iixcmluii'i^ Ilailwiiy f'<>. v 

iiiiy. r>-J. ICil, .::{'.•, 318.' 
(irnil Nortlurri I'liiUvny Co. v. L 

.•-liirc, (Ic. I.'ailwny i'o., KIT). 
(!re:it Wi'^tcrii Itiiilway I'd. v. Crips 
Green v. Uiiiik of lln^^laiul, 3.VJ. 

— V. Harri'tt. -il, '.MK 372. 

— »'. liavcr.stoclic, 221. 

— fi. (losdeii, '.M». 

— V. Lowi'.s, 214. 
Green c Isixon, 11, 42, 278. 
Greenfield v. ]5ates, 171. 

— V. Kdwards, 95, 122, 123, 
13S, 'J.18. 
Greenliill v. Cinircli, 2SS. 
Greenlaw r. Ilui^cll. lf.2. 

— >'. Kin:,', iri2, 1S2. 
Greensladc /■. Dare, 23.">, 239, 240, 248 

254, 2(12, 321. 
Greenwood v. Bairstow, 244. 

■ — J'. Greenwood, 125. 
Gregory v. Gregory, 158, 301, 305, 
311. 

— V. y\]<xhQ\], 129. 

— V. Pilkini^ton, 414. 

— V. Wilson, 407. 
Gre8leyv.Mou.slev, 105, It'.C, 302, 

305. 307, 31 1! 348, 371, 379. 
Grey v. Pearson, 451. 
Grieveson >•. Kirsopp, 433. 
(Jriflin v. Clowes, 13S. 
<;rirtith 1'. Spratk'v, lSt'>. 
Grirtitlis V. Kobbiiis, 190, 192, 193. 
Grigirs V. Stajylce, 219, 220. 
Grisley v. Lotlier, 220. 
(irissell v. Peto, 65. 
Grogan v. Cooke, 212. 
Grosvenor v. Green, 80, 243, 255. 
— V. Sherratt, 190, 193, 
311. 
Grove v. Bastard, 391. 
Grover i-. llugell, 158, 162. 
Grovea v. Groves, 375, 376. 

— V. Perkins, 95, 101, 392. 
Grylls, cx-ptrrlc, 158. 
(inbbins v. Creed, 184. 
(Jurney v. Womersley, 58. 
Guy V. Pearkes, 209. 
G Wynne v. Ueaton, 187, 344. 



Haicii It. llaiijb, 291, 477. 
Hale V. AUiHitt, 283. 

— r. Saloon Omnibus Co. 212. 
Hall I'. Conder. 105. 

— V. Hall. 184. 

— V. llallett, 161, 349. 

— «■. Noves, 158. 



302, 



Hall V. P<itter, 221. 

— »•. Smilli. 212. 

Hallows i: I'.rnie. f.l, 74, 95, 391. 
Haincr v. Til-li-y. 1. •:.'(. 
Haniilt<jn v. f^a I. 371. 

— V. (J rant, :m4. 

— V. Ivirwan, 3K4. 

— •■. i:<.y>e, 236, 241. 242, 269. 

— r. Watson, 122, 123. 

— >: \Vrii,'lit. 151. 15S. 1.59. 
Hnnmicrsley r. !»<• Bid, H'.i, 90, 136, 842, 
Hampden ;•. Jlam|)il«'n, 27'i. 
llamj)-liire r. Pcirc<', 4 19. 

Ilampson r. Ibimpson, 3.'i4. 
Hanbiiry v. Litclitield, 214. 
Hankey i'. Vernon, 4o7. 
Hannah j'. Hodijson. 118. 
Haiminuton v. l)u Cliat> I, 222. 
Hanson ;•. Keatiiii;. 5"_'. ;;;i5, 336. 
Harbidf^c! v. \Vo;^aii, 428. 
Harbin v. Darby, 156. 
Hareourt v. Wliitc, 129, 304. 
Hardini: r. Wickbam, 29ii, 292. 
Hardinghani r: NicboUs, 318, 319, 870 
llardman v. Booth, 49. 

— V. Ellames, 370. 
Hare v. Horwood, 4o7. 
Hargreave v. Everard, 194. 
Har^'reaves i\ llithwell, 259. 
Harnian r. liichards, 199, 201. 
Harnett v. Yeilding, 412. 
Harris )•. Ingledew, 370. 

— V. Kemble, 78, 93, 95, 358, 359, 

— V. IVpperell, 414, 454, 455. 

— r. Pickett. 283. 

— V. Trenienheere, 170. 
Harrison, ex-parle, ICiO. 161. 

— V. l"op|)ard. 323, 

— V. Forth, 316. 

— V. Gardiner, 356. 

— V. Guest, 183, 186, 189. 191, 

192, 238, 371. 

— V. Randall, 273. 

— V. Mayor, itc. of Southampton, 

294. 
Harrod r. Ilarrod, 146. 
Harrynian r. Collins, 250, 254. 
Hart't'. Windsor, 104. 
Hartopp /■. Ilartopp, 180. 191, 352, 391. 
Hartwtll /'. Colvin, :;04. 305. 

— V. Hartwell. 222. 
Harvey v. Cooke, 125, 404. 

— V. Mount, 193, 393. 

— f. Shclton, 292, 293, 

— V. Youns-. 83, S4, 85. 
Harwood v. Tooke, 222, 224. 
Hasell, cjr-j.nrW, 3n7. 
Hastie i: Couturier, 40r,. 
Hateh v. liateh, 177, 178, 306. 

— I'. Sear'es, 21>>. 
Haven v. Foster, 4uJ. 



10 



TAUl.i: nf INCl.lSIl CA8i:S ciTi:i». 



IlawkiiM f. Bone. 147- 

llnwiov «•. <Ymn.r. li'.O. Ifl8. IfiO. 224. 

Hnv. ■ < wv. ft7. 82. n2.'.. 

lla\u •; :rt, 77, 78, 8:}, 95. 3:>9. 

Htuani r. Irwin, r»4. 
IIc«(I r. Co.llof. 181. 
Ileaoe r. Uo^^m. l»'.'. 
Heap r. Tonye. 224. 
Ilfathcoalc c rnii^non, 187. 
llomin:; >•. Swinrrton, 28'J. 
lIomint;\V)iy ■. Iliiinilton, 88. 
Ileininer r. Coopir, S8. 
lIcniKTSoii V. Cook. 4n7. 

— V. lln<l!ion, f.2. 359. 

— r. Lncon. 47, 48, 08, CO, 85, 

11(1, :i2r.. .'!(■.'.). 

— t: Koynl Hriti.-li Unnk, 330. 
llcnli'v f. Stono, ;;74. 

lIonnc(inin »•. Niivlor. 109, 386. 
Jlorbcrt v. lUilkU-v. 41. 
Hercy v. Dinwooiiy, :;u3. 
Hern V. Nidiolls, 112. 
Heme v Mceres, 151. 
Heron v. Heron, 182, 298. 
Hervcy v. Hervey. 4 10. 

— r. Siiiitli. 217. 
Hes«e V. Briant, 105. 17^). 
Hewitt V. Loosomore, 141, 237, 251, 256, 

200, 262. 
IK'wlins r. Sliipliam, 134. 
Hicliens v. {'on^reve. 373. 
Hick V. Piiilipps, 302. 
Hickt-s V. Cooke, 102, 194, 303, 304, 305, 

3ort, 
Hicks V. MoraiiK 309. 
Ilickson V. Loinhnrd, 383. 
Hiern v. Mill, 2:!4. 248, 251. 
Hi;^tfins r. Joyce, 105. 

— r. S.ninels. 78, 82, 83. 357, 369. 
Hi^nson v. ( lowc*. 359, 412. 

— r. Kelly. 287. 
HiSfinbothnni v. Holme, 280, 287. 
Hill, fxpirU. 1C2, 287. 

— f. Hiukley. 05. 80, 3G1. 

— r. (iray. 88, 93. 

— f. Man<h.>;tiT Waterworks Co. 388. 

— V. S\i\i\triiu. 2;i9. 

— 9. Soiitli Stuironlshire UuUw.iy Co., 

130. 
Hills r. ]»ownfon. 413. 

— V. i;..\vliiii-l. 42S. 
Hinchinbrooke. I.onl v. Seymour. 208. 
Ilimle'a L<'(«Hees r. I.oni^wortli, 200. 
Hindfwn v. WeatliiM ill, 171. 

nine r. I>o.l.l. 239. 
Hinlon r. Hinton. 1H4. 
Hiornii r. HoiiU'»n. l.'iS. 
Hipkinn »•. Amerv. 251. 
Aliul.cock r, Gi'ddlns*. 400, 430, 432, 
4&fi. 



Hitrliln V. Orooni. 417. 
Jlolibs V Norton. 92. 3n. 
Holi.JHy ••. IVlers. 171. 171. 175. 177. 
Hoil^'kiiiHon f. I'cniie. 4 18. 
Ho<l;;^on. rr-/>firli\ PW. 

— I', bean. 205. 
Hojjxjo V. Hurtjesn, 447. 418. 
Ho;,'liton V. Ho<;lilon, 152. 180, 182, 845, 

3s7. 
Holl.ird »'. .\nderson, 212. 
Holilernesl f. Katikin. liOS. 
lloUowny r. Heading'"". -'^^• 

— r. Millard. 199. 2ii7, 208. 
Holman r Loyncn, 153. 159, 163, 166, 

100. 107, 17<>. 17.'., 371. 
Holiues V. Co^rliill. 439. 

— V. Cnslanee. 449. 450. 

— r. renn.v, 2<>0, 2t>l, 203, 207. 

— r. I'owelf. 244, 215. 
Holmes' K-tate, J;,; 170, 380. 
Holt !•. Holt. 151. 

Holt's Case, 110. 
Holwortliy v. Mortlock, 407. 
liolymnn, r.r-/xtrlr, 101. 
Homier v. .M.>rton, 'Jno, 801. 
Hood V. Oirlandcr. 412. 
Hooper r. Clark, 132. 

— V. (tumm, 130. 

— f. Smith, 281. 
Hopei;. Liddell. 241. 
Hopirood «'. KrnoAt, 141, 251. 
Hopkins I'. Tanqueray, 70. 
Ho|ikinson t'. Uult. 321. 
Hore »'. r.efli<r. loo, 431. 
Horn I'. Horn, 2o9. 

— J'. Kilkenny itc. Hallway Co. 278. 
Hornby v. .Mateliain, 275. 

Horsfall v. Tlioinas, 95, 100. 

Horton v. Westminster Improvement 

Commissioners, 388. 
Hotcbkiss t'. Dickson, 121. 
llotKon V. IJrowne. 93, 3S8. 
Honj:li V. Uicbardson. 01. 74, 77, 78. 
Houi;litun v. Lees, 2J3, 431. 
llovenden v. Lord Anucslev, 191, 301, 

307, 314. 
How r. Welilon, ISS. 191, 318, 322. 
Howard v. Castle, 225. 

— t'. Cliairers, 257. 

— V. Ducane, 102. 

— I'. Karl of Shrewsbury, 288. 
Ilowden I'. Hai<;h, 215. 

Howell V. Hnker. lOS. 

— V. Howell, 31H. 
Howkins i>, ,laekHon, 433, 434. 
Howland e. .Norris, 02, 339, 301, 303. 
Hubbard v. nri:,'(;«. 5*8.5. 

Hudson t>. Iteauehaiii]), 140. 
Hu-heH, fx-ifirtf, 101, 172, 174, 3(0, 
:U'.t. 

— r (Jarncr, 258, 313, 307, 370. 



t.\i;m; oi' i'Nclisii casiis ciikd. 



U 



Hughes t'. Caith, '.'.>'<'.<. 

— »'. Ilowanl, 'J77. 

— I'. Jones, :!((I. 

— .'. W.-lls, 41n. 
IliUjuonin v. l{u«K'y, M, is;i, 198. 
Iluletl'aCiise, '.V>',\. 

Hume V. I'ocock-. 83, .ISfl. 
Iluiiiplircy V. Olver, UC.K, .'(85, 38(1. 
lliiin|ilircy.s v. I'cn^ftui, 2'2'.>. 
lliini]iliii",'« I', lloruo, I'-M, l.'''". 
lltiiisili'ii V. Clicytii'V, l"!', i:;l. 
Hunt V. Kllllc■^i, "ill," U5G. 

— r. Hort. 452. 

— V. Matthews, 218, 275. 

— r. Mortimer, 2S(5. 

Hunter v. Atkins, 170, IVG, 177, 101. 
Huteliinson v. Alorlcv, 85. 
Hutton r. ('ruttwc'il,"28L 

— V. lios.^iter, 51, fiO, 312. 
Hvde r. Wliitc, 221. 

Hylton V. llyitou, 177, 178. 

iBnoTSos V. Rhodes, 130, 132. 

Ingle V. Richards, 1 58. 

Inglis i\ Lumsden, 341. 

Ingram i-. Thorii, 48, S3, 342, 344, 309, 

379. 
Inncs I'. Jackson, 427. 

— Sayer, 4 10. 

Ireland, Bank of, v. Trustees of Evans* 

I'iiarities, 137, 142. 
Irnham, Lord. i-. Child, 428, 429. 
Irvine r. Kirkpatrick, 51, 73, 83, 93, 95, 

HG, 125, Mi',. 
Ives t'. Medcalfe, 291, 292. 
Izon V. Gorton, I'U. 

Jackman v. Mitcliell, 214, 344, 392. 
Jackson v. Jackson, 2t)8. 

— V. King, 14(1. 

— V. Rowe, 239, 252, 257, 317, 3G9. 
Jacobs V. Richards, 145, 146. 

James, cx-parte, 154, 157, 158, 159, 161, 

165. 
Jameson v. Stein, 73, 74, 93, 34a 
Jarvis I' Duke, 53. 
Jay V. Richardson, 235, 240. 
Jcilerys *■. JefTcrys, 2i»3, 445. 
J<'nd\vine v. Slaile, 83. 
Jenkins v. Jones, 317. 
Jcnkinson v. Pepys, 412. 
Jenkyn v. Vaui^h'an, 207, 208. 
Jenn(-r t'. Jenner, 18(\ 181, 182. 
Jennings v. liroughton, 54, 73, 74, 75, 76, 

77, 78, 82, S3, 100, 302, 307, 382, 

3'.to. 
Jerrard v. Snuiiders. 313. 
Jewson I'. Moulton, 203. 
Johnson v. Fesenieyei-, 169, 285. 

— V. Gallaglier. 149. 

— V. Legard, 230, 232. 



Johnxr.n r. ():;ilvv, 16. 

— V. 1'ye. i48. 

— V. Stuart, 83, 360. 

— r. Taher, 77. 78. 
JoneH V. Rennr-tt, 293. 

— II. Casw.ll, 221. 

— t'. Crouclier, 233. 

— V. (Jurcia del Rio, 378. 

— V. (In'gory, 4 1. 

— V. Jones, 142. 

— V. Just, l(t5, 107. 

— V. Kearney, 148, 235. 

— V. Keene, 98. 

— V. Marsh, 2<t3. 

— ♦'. ilarlin, 217. 

— V. Towies, 51, 314, 317, 

— V. i'rice, 164, 165. 

— t'. I'rovinciul Insurance Co. 120, 

122. 

— V. Ricketts, 392. 

— ?'. Roberts, 166. 

— V. Smith, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 

244, 247, 251, 252, 254, 255, 
250, 257. 

— V. Stanley, 319. 

— V. Thomas, 137, 103, 168, 170. 

— r. Tripp, ItJO. 

— V. Turberville, 303. 

— I'. Williams, 238, 242, 256. 

— V. Wright, 107. 
Jordcn v. Money, 88, 89. 

Joyce V. De .Moleyns, 313, 320, 321. 
Joynes t'. Statham, 417, 418. 

IvATN V. Old, 69, 99. 
Kay V. Crook, 88, 342, 
— V. Smith, 380. 
Kcat V. Allen, 222. 
Keates v. Lord Cadogan, 100, 104. 
Keech v, Sandford, 154. 
Kellj- V. Rogers, 300. 

— V. Solari, 4(i0, 414. 
Kel?ali V. Bennett, 370. 

Kelson v. Kelson, 200, 227, 229, 231. 
Kemp V. Piose, 292. 
Kendall, cx-parte, 425. 

— V. lIulLs, 200, 261. 
Kennedy v. Daly, 316. 

V, Green, 137, 138, 238, 248, 
201, 370. 

— t». Panama, «tc. Co. 58, 69, 60, 

334. 
Kennell v. Abbott, 354, 451, 
Kenne}' v. Browne, 132, 254, 347. 
Ken.sington, Lord, v. Bouverie, 348. 
Kent J'. Freehold Land and Briekmaking 

Co. 80, <t5, 11(», ;;.-,l. 
Ker i;. Lord Dungannon, 250^ 317. 
Ke-rick v. Bran3l>y, 11. 
KI Iney v Cou sniitker, 453 
Kiilick t'. Flexuey, 101. 



TAIU-K OF r.NCI.lSlI C'ASLIS CITED. 



King 9. HnniUton. '22:t, :>.'8. 

— r. llnmlct. aU9. 344, 

— •. SnviTV. S43. 

— w. WxUo'n. 81). Sfll. 
KinjTsf.ml r. M.rry. 4S. 329. 
KirkwiHul r. Tln>Mi|>!<on, IC'.'. 
Kinvan r. (.'ulli-n. r.>3. 
Ki«oli r. (Vnlnil Vfiurinln Kni 

Tl». 80. 8'J. 8:i, S7, IM. »:>, 

'J .'!(>. 

Knntohbull r. Crnebor. 64. »rt2, 
Knight r. Howvor. lt".5. 2:!8. '. 
3tvt, .^l>7. 

— r. limit, 21.'.. 

— V. Marjorilmiiks. 78. 06, 

l.'.l'. lt;2. 1S2, 18.'>. 
Knowlcs r. Iloui;lit<in, :t7i'. 
Knox p. Svmraouils, 447. 



hvn\ 


. 7.\ 


11"", 


111. 


, 363 




2 II'.. 


2 IS, 


i:.2, 


1.'.7, 



hxczr, ex-partr, 154, 157, 161, S24, 349. 

— r. Ingle. 

Laclilan r. Ueynolds. 343, 362. 

l^rkerfitecn v. Lackorsteen, 423. 

Ijicon V. LilTi-n, 286. 

l.,aitllow f. Organ, 91. 

l>ainu V. Fidgcun, 107. 

Lairil r. IJirkenliead RniUvay Co. 120, 

135. 136. 
Lamburt v. Lambort. 11»3. 
Lunilce r. llannian, 216. 
Lanijihigli v. I^midu^li. 184. 
J^anca^UT i'. Evors, 371. 
I>ance v. Norman, 217. 
Lane r, Jackson, 267, 321. 

— V. Page, 268, 273. 
I.an-l.'V V. V\Aur. Ill, 354, 300. 
I.iiii^rliliri.' V. Li-vy, 373. 
I^aii-^iowne V. Laiiadowne, 400. 
J^a^sencc v. Tii-rnL-y, 2<i2. 
l.atinicr v. Bat.soii. 211. 
Latouche r. I.K>riI Dunsany. 265. 
leaver v. FicliK-r. Oo, 342. 

Law V. I>a\v. 2:11. 2 i2, 378. 

1jivv1l-»8 t: Man-tifM, 163. 166. 

l^iwlcy r. Il.K.pcr. 42. 344. 

Lawn-no* i'. OaKwcirlliv, l.'>8. 

1 .awrcnci-'rt la-i-. 61, 70. 263, 302. 3i»7. 

l,awTiMi'«>n I', liutirr. 44o. 

Lnwlon r. Canii.ii'n. 401, 43t. 

l.avar.i r. .Maiiti, 137, 141. 

|..-...li r. Mullflt, 63. 

L.iiki' r. Youni;. 'J8I. 2H3. 

l..akin.'« r. CliM-ll. 84, 85. 

LeallitT Cloth Co. I'. Am. riiaii L.atlitr 

Cloth Co., 392, 303. 
],oo V. AngnH, 50. 

— r. Ki-rnie. 271. 

— V. Marl. 281. 

... .b.n.M. 00. \2i. \i:\. 

— V. I».klart. 214. 



Lciil!*. Duke of. v. Lonl Amherst. 129, 

208. 209. »0l, 804. 
LctiN r. Niitall. 175. 
L.-CU'- »•. Croki.r. 62. 02. 
l.filtliililN CiiMf, 868, 
L.-iirh r. Llovil, 234. 240. 
L« Novo V. I'm Nevo. 260, 266. 
Leonard r. LiM.nard. 124.401,434. 
Len.w I'. Wiliuarlli. 206. 
Leslie r. I'.aiilie, 4t>2. 

— r. Th..nii.*>n, 62. 67, 368, 365. 
Lester V. (iarlaiul, 2S7. 

Leuty r. Ililla.^ 407,413,419, 437,454. 
Lewis, iT-piiitf, 340. 

— r. M..nd. 243. 

— V. llillinan. 1.58. 166, 173, 174, 

— I'. .lones. 00, 215. 

— I'. I'ead, 101. 

— r. lUe-. 220, 230. 

L.-yland v. illini:w..rth, 82, 86,339, 390. 

Leibman r. llareourt. 3113. 321, 

Life Association of Scotland r. Siddall, 
200. 3(»1. 303. 305, 307. 

Lifjijins V. Inge. 134. 

Lijjlitfoot ?•. Heron. 147. 

Lillie V. Leirh, 135. 

Lincoln V. Wright. i:'.5. 

Lind.nau v. l.esborough, 110, 120, 122, 

I.iiido v. Lindo, 208. 

Liiidon V. Sharp, 211, 

Lindsay i'. Cibb.s, 127, 

Linehaii v. Cotter, 64, 343, 362. 

Lingood J'. Crouch, 200. 

Lister i-. Turner. 23ii. 

Liverpool A.lelphia Association v. Fair- 
hurst, MS. 

Livinfxst.ine v. Ilendc, 2(i.5. 

Llowellin r. Cbbold. 170. 217, 
_ V. Miickworlh. 384. 
— I'. I'ace. 47. 

Lloyd V. Atwood. 125. 100, 260, 298, 
3uO. 324. 

— r. Brewster. 331. 

— r. Clarke, 47. 103. 
_ r. Coek.-r, 421. 

— V. I'a.ssinirlian", 125, 312. 314. 
Load t'. Green, 328, 

Loader v. Clark, 217, 220, 302, 390. 

Locke r. I'rescott. 240. 

Lt.irus V. .Maw. SO. on. 

L'.Tnix V. Kiplev. 270. :!S'j. 

London. K.u.k of. r. Tyrr.ll. 347. 3.V>. 

L(»ndoii and nirmingham Uailway Co. r. 

Winter. 4 IK. 
L<indoii ;\ssnran«v Co. p. M<»hcs, 46. S.'S.'i. 
Lonilonderry and Knni'kilh-n Uailway 

Co. I'. I..4'islinian. 20ii. 
Loiigmalo p. Ledger, 146, l.Vt. I'.tn, 344, 

371 
Lor.:ineiil v. Ilolliday. 373, 
l.ion.'da e, b.rd, p. Liltlednle, 290. 



TAliLi: «)F i;N(iI-lSll CASI.S ClTi;!). 



Loril V. lIiidiTiloiick, K!'>. 

i.ovi-:! .'. MicUs. '.1.!. li:., :ioj. :iii, yr.o. 

Lovit'iiIl;" I'. C'lioptr, 11 ;i. 

L')wii(l<.s <'. IjUIii', 70, 77, 78, ^1, 'Jl, 1'-. 

Lowtlicr /'. ('arltmi, iHti. 

— I'. Lowtlicr, 17U. 
Loxley r. llcatli, H!i, !»(). 
Lnciis f. Worswitk, loO. 
Ltii'ciia V. Liifi'iia, 41 2. 
LiK'V, rr-/>artt\ KM. 

Luffr. Lord, i')?, ;is:{, aoo. 
Lund I'. IJIaiiihard, :!7.'5, .S80. 
Luttrull ./. Oliiiiiis, 271. 
Lyddon i'. Moss, lt>:{, 1G4, 1G5, a02,305, 
ao7. 

Lydc /•. iMynn, 221. 

Lyiie y. Lyne, ;iC)'.t. 

Lyon v. 11(111)0, 18U, 191, 193, 391, 392. 

Lysney p. Selby, 75, 78, 80, 82, 85. 

Maber v. Ilobbs, 259. 

jrAIpino v. Swift, 430, 455. 

Macartliy ?-. Di-fui.v, 398, 401, 400. 

M'Ulair r. (Jibbes, 379. 

Wacbridi' v. I^indsa}-, 355. 

M'Jiryde v. Wcekos, 302. 

M'Burnic, cx-partc, 202. 

M'Cnbe v. IIiissov, 171. 

M'Cullocli )'. GroVory, 92, 255, 343, 350. 

M'Diarmid v. M'Diarmid, 190, 194. 

Macdoiia v. Switu-y, 211. 

Matdoiialil v. .Macdonald, 307. 

W'Doiiiiell V. Wliite. 307, 309. 

Wackeilar c. Wallace, 12.'). 

M'Keniia, Re. 157. 

M'Kinnell v. Itobinson, 374. 

Maclure v. Uipli'}', 95, 182. 

M'Ncill )'. Cniiill, 191, 214, 217. 

M'Queon v. Farqiiliar, 254, 310, 384, 392. 

Macretli v. Syiiions, 234. 

Maddeford r. Aiistwick, 125, 182. 

Maddox V. JIaddox, 258. 

Madolcy v. Booth, 02. 64, 362, 363. 

Bladen V. Vcevcrs, 302. 

Madrid Bank, lie, 95. 

Mai,'cnni.s v. I'aikui, 302, 363. 

Maitland v. Backhouse, 178. 230, 238. 

— V. Irving, 1 78, 254. 
Jlajor f. ^lajor, 12t). 

Sla'lden v. Meiiill, 397, 433, 430. 

JIaict lie, 429. 

Maliiis V. Freeman, 412, 455. 

M;illalieu v. Uoduson, 388. 

Malincsbury v. Mabncsbury, 419, 437. 

Maljias v. Acklaiul, 241. 

Man )•. AVard, 3s,'^., 381. 

Mani)y t'. Bewicke, 140. 

Mangles v. Dixon, 130, 236, 322. 

— V. Grand Dock Colliery Co., 290 
Manning v. Albee, 84. 

— V. Lechiuere, 383. 



Miiiiniiif^Cord »». T'llctiuiii, 221. 
.Man.ser c. Back, 411, 413, 418. 455. 
.Manser's Ca.'tc. 390. 
.March V. Lee, 324. 
.Marc I'. iMalachy, 381. 

— V. Sandford, 214. 

— V. Warni-r, 211. 
Marjoriiianks/'. Ilovcndcn, 259,200,201. 
Marker v. .Marker, 132. 

Mar.silcn'.s Tru.'^t, lU; 208, 209,270,271, 

385. 
Mnrslmll v. Cdlett, 397, 433. 

— V. 8laddt!n. 300, 394. 

Martin «. Cotter. 18, 19, 243, 244,255, 
339, 3(i0. 

— V. Martin, 228. 

— n. Mitciicll, 357. 

— V. Mor^^an. 99. 

— V. I'ycroft, 147, 304. 305, 418. 

— V. yedgwick, 112. 
.Martindale v. Boolli, 2lo, 211. 
-Martinez v. Coo])er, 141. 
.Marvin v. Bennett, 07. 
Ma.son v. Armitai^e, 412. 

— V. Cro.sliy, 77, 78. 
Ma.ssey j-. Davie.s, 172, 174. 
filasson I'. liovet, 337. 
Masters v. Ibberson, 331. 
Matthew v. Bri.se, 178, 306, 311. 
Matliiie r. Edwards, 170. 

Maturin « Tredcnnick, 88, 175, 330,337, 

310, 350. 
Maundrell v. Maundrell, 313. 
JIaunsell v. Hedges, 89, 90. 93, 342. 
Maxwell v. Port Tenant Steam Fuel Co.. 

172. 
May r. Chapman, 330. 
ila^'hew V. Eames, 259. 
.Mayiiard i'. Moselcy, 4o7. 
Meadows v. Meadows, 410, 414, 430, 

454. 
Medbury v. Watson, 84, 85. 
Meddowcroft v. Ilngnenin, 294. 
Medwin v. Sandhani, 4 10. 
Mellers v. Duke of Devonshire, 397. 
Mellish V. Mellish, 178, 449. 

— V. Motteux, 100. 
Mercer v. Peterson, 281, 283. 
Meredith v. Saunders, 180, 189. 
Merewether v. Shaw, 00, 69, 73. 
Mertins i'. JollifTe. 241. 310. 
.Mestaer v. (Tillespic, 275, 444. 
Metcalfe, Rr, 193. 

— V. Pulverton, 230. 
Meux's Executors' Case, 115. 
iliddlecombe v. Marlow, 203, 
Middleton r. Middlcton, isi, 195, 273. 

— I'. Sherburn. 184, 19.3. 
Midland Great AVe.-itern Ilailway Co., 

ol Ireland i'. Johnson, 397. 
Mildinay i'. llungerford, 401. 



u 



TAllLi: t>r MNCl.lSIl CASl'.S ( lTi;i) 



>!•!.■ 



!) 1--V. 247. 

, • ■. :Mrt. a47. 

A .'.•S, 414. 430. 



M . 1. ,. \. i^' SocU'tv. 447, -146. 

M' ;..r V. Milii. r. 448,449. 
N. : .-,• r. lVt«Ts. ;i7".>. 
^;.; hull .-. Llov.l. -Jio. 
^l.• 'h 11 r. Sli'wurd. '1^2. 
">: \ I's Inso. 4N. 1 17. :{;''tv 
M . :ittn V. Muri:ntniy»l, 'J'>1. 
M •• lis t: ll<-vwiirtl>. .'lO, 72. 
M. .:^' r. HakiT. •J^^.. 
M i;m'lix. r/-/»./i7r. IGl. 
M. I.i V. \Vlu:itrroft, 'ir>\ . 
MoK.ny r. Kirnnn, 152. 173,249,318, 
37t'. 

— f. L'Kslranso. 1 •>■">. 297, 300. 
MolUm r. Cainrtiux. 1 l.'i. 14 7. 
Monro r. Taylor. 419, 4:J2. 
Moiitefiorc i! l^rownc. 239. 242. 
Moiitifiori V. MonU'fiori. 342. 
Moiitf.^qMimi r. Sanilys, 105, 108, 170, 

:;r,o. :f'.ii. 

Moodie r. llfid. 410. 
Moor V. Bi-nuflt, 241. 
Moore V. Frowil, 156. 

— V. Jorvis, 323. 

— V. Mnyhow, 319, 370. 

— f. Moore, 402. 

— r. rrance. 105. 380, 387, 394. 

— f. llyfaiilt. 203. 
Morecock v. Dkken.s, 204. 
Mott laml i: riuharilr^oii, 247. 
Mor;5UU, fx-parle, lt>2, 349. 

— V. HriU'ii, 392. 

— I'. Evans, 100. 
— » V. Hif^ijins, 105. 

— v. L<'wcs, 100. 307. 

— r. Mather, 447. 
.Moriand. cj- jxirtr, lf,(t. 
Morky I'. Atteiil)oroiii;li, I05. 

— V. Clnvcrinfj, 244. 257. 

— f. lUiiiiolil.-jon. 453. 
Morphett r. Jones, 135. 
.Morrttt V. I'oske, 324. 
Morris v. (MarkBon. 210, 

— V. Li vie. 322. 323. 

— V. MCiillo.h. 222. 

— r. Venalilf's, 284. 
Morris Canal Co. v. Knmiett, 07. 
MorBC r. Itoval, 157. 159, 187. 190, 

297. 
Mortimer v. IJ.U, 220. 

— V. Cappfr, 432. 

— f. Orclianl. 450. 

— V. .Sliiirtali. 422, 423. 454. 455. 
M'"-* V. IJainhrik"^'"-. 100, 108, 109. 

\' -iiforil r. Sr» U. 259. 

i s.itt r. lilake 382. 
Mosey V. Bigwootl, 412, 455. 



Miickl.'st..n I. Urown, 279. 
MufTjeritlije »•. Kew lirunswick. Ac, 

lU Iwuy Co., 93, 90, 1 H». 
Miilhull.n V. Moruni, 173, 177, 179. 297. 

340, 347, 350, 390. 
Mnlvany v. I)inon. lOO. 
Miiininery i'. Paul, r.20. 
Mtindav «'. Knijjlit, 800. 
Miindyr. Joliiire. 135, ISO. 
Miirpliy. r/-;»ii7<, 287. 

— V. Abruhuin, 200. 207. 

— r. ()'.^hen, 173, 171, 347. 
Murray v. iJnrlee, 148. 

— V. Mnnn, 332, 383, 

— r. rainier, 50, isO, 190, 297, 303, 

31t». 312, 340. 347, 350. 

— r. I'arker, 419, 455. 

— V. Pinkett, 323. 
Myers v. Watson, 357, 304, 390. 

Naole f. Baylor, 147, 302. 

Nanno}' v. Williams, 171, 274. 

Nantes v. Corroek, 209. 

Nu.sh r. AsIj, 379. 

National As^suranco Association, /Ce, 

239, 242. 
National Exehanijo Conipanv v. Drew. 

78, 83, 93, 115, 110, 11*7, 118, 300, 

373. 
National Life Assurance and Investment 

Association. 7»V, 254. 
Naylor i-. Winch, 152, 398, 4u4, 434. 

454. 
Ncalc V. Day, 2iiO. 

— t'. Nealf, 404. 434. 
Neap I'. Aljliott. 412, 435, 450. 
Neatc r. Hall, 331. 

Nedby f. Nedby. 193. 

Necsom v. Clarkson, 210, 241, 257, 311. 

335, 340, 347. 
NfUis V. Clark, 374, 375. 
Nelson v. l)nnconibo. 145. 

— V. Stocker. 75. 70, 79, 14S. 
Nelthorpe v. llolgate, 100, 214, 247, 

304. 

— V. I'ennvnian. 100. 349. 
Ne.'«l>ilt 1: UiTridVe, 171. 308, 3V4. 
Neville V. Wilkin.-.<.M, 210. IMl. 

New Hruuswiek, itc.. Uailway Co. 9. 

Conybeare. 74, 70. 77. 83.92, 111. 

1 12.*1 16, 1 10, 1 17, 1 is. 320, 300, 390. 
New Hrunswick. Ac.. Uailway Co. r. 

Miii,'i;erid:re, 80, it5, lo'.), 359. 
Newbnr;;)! ••. Ne\vbur;^li, 452. 
Newliaiii I'. May, 45. 
.Newman v. raytie, 103, 100, 170, 344. 
.Niriioll V. .lones, 15o. 
Nicliolls 1: lyeson, 4" '-J. 

— r. Nieliolls. 1S4. 

— I'. Pinner. 109. 

— 1: lloe, 289, 290. 



TA15L1: or KNCl.lsn CASI.S ('ITi:i). 



15 



Niiholn V. ClKiili"-. 'J'.td. 

— V. llatK-iK'k, TXi. 

— r. riiiiu'i", UK,'). 
Nicliolson V. Il<)i>|i(r, llio, 132. 
Js'U'fil I". N'mi'^xliHii, 17<i. 
jN'iiMill t'. ( limiilii'iH. 07. 

Kicoll's C';iM-, IS. 71. 75. O:!, Ill, 115, 
110, 117. lis, 1:57, :1I7, '-'.'M. 

Nioll V. Morl.v, M."). 

Nivon I'. 15ill;iiii|>, 127. 

Nixiiii V. HmiiiliDii, l"Jl, 251), 201, 200. 

Nock V. Niwiiian. III^. 

Nokfs V. Wliartoii. l<il. 

Korciitt )'. Doilil, 20l» 

Norfolk. Duke of. v. Worthy, 0.3. 82. 

North IJrilish Insuranco Co. 1;. Llo^-d, 
122. 

Norton v. Rclly, 193. 

Norway i'. Kowe, 202. 

Nottr. Hill, 188, 189. 

Nottriil;,'e v. I'rince, lO.I. 

Nuun V. Fiibian, 129, 130. 

Oakes v. Tiirqunnd, 48, 49, 94, 112, 110, 

307, 330, 330. 
O'Brien v. Lewis, 170. 
O'Fav V. Biirkc. 129, 133. . 
t):,'ilvic V. JealVreson, 50, 51, 139. 2C0, 

201, 202. :;12, 314, 315, 317, 345. 
Okill t'. Wliittaker. 433, 454. 
Oldham v. Hand. 170. 

— V. Litchlield. 275. 
Oldia V. Sambourn, 177. 
Oliver, ex-par tc, 215. 
Xtlliver I'. Court, 305, 300. 
Olivant v. Bayley. 107. 410. 
Olliver v. Kins, "l 27, 130. 

O'Neil V. Haiiiil, 178, 298, 310, 311. 

Onions v. Tyrer, 453. 

On.'slow )'. Corrie, 277. 

Oriental Bankin;j Co. v. Coleman, 282. 

Ornies v. Beadel, 293, 299. 

Ormrod v. Huth, 57, 325. 

Orr ti. Union Bank of Scotland, 139. 

Osborne v. Williams. 222, 288, 377. 

Osmond v. Fitzruy, 140, 194. 

Overton u. Bannister, 382. 

Ovey I'. Lei^hton, 370. 

OwJn I'. Homaii. 122, 123, 236, 237. 

Oxwiek V. Brockett, 437. 

Oxwith !'. Blummer, 247. 

Page v. HorDe. 193. 
Bain »■. Coombs, 135. 
Paine v. Hall. 275, 279. 
Painter c. Newl)y, 303, 365. 
Palmer i'. Neave, 215. 

— V. Wheeler, 241, 268, 377. 
Pares v. Pares, 384. 

Parker v. lll-xam. 298, 310. 

— V. Carter, 229. 



Parker v. (lark.-. Is."., 321 

— V. TiiHwell, 412, 42H, 4B4. 

— V. Whyte, 257. 317. 
Parkes 1; White, 102. 
PurkiuHun v. Hanhury, 15U, 317. 

— I'. Bee. lot;. 
Parncll )■. Tyler, 171. 
Parr /. .Jewell, 3S3. 

— V. Love;;r<ive, 39ii, 392. 
Parsdii.s V. Parsons, 419. 
Partridfje v. Steven.'*, 40l. 

— I'. U.'<b<>rne, 311. 
Pasley c. Freeman, 324, 325, 339. 
Piileli" V. Wanl, 3.'.3. 

I'atcnt File Co.. </ jmrtc White, :;.'i2, 39fi. 
Paul.son V. Wellington, 21b. 
Paxton V. Pojihan), 3.SH. 
i'ayuc V. Comiiton, 320. 

— 1'. Hornby, 284. 
I'eacock v. Evans, 344. 

— V. Kernot, 192. 
Pearson v. Benson, 105, 109, 
Peel V. , 184, 193. 

— i'.Lo;;jgon, 184. 
Peel's Ca.se, 3o7. 
Pelly V. Ba.scombe, 847. 
Peniber v. Mather, 3S9. 
I'endleLurv v. Walker, 21.5. 
Pennell r. Reynolds, 281, 282, 283. 
Pennin^^on v. Beechc}', 370. 
Penny c. Watts, 253. 

Pcrens v. Ji.hn.son, 100, 182. 
Perfect V. Lane, 81. 
Perkes, ix-parfe, 101. 
Perrins ;•. Marine Insurance Co., 73. 
I'errv '■• Holl, 230, 254, 250, 200, 201, 
202. 

— V. Meddowcroft, 294. 

IVrrv llerrick v. AttwooJ, 137. 140, 141. 

227, 240, 251. 
Persse v. Persse, 434. 
Peter v. Russell, 140, 141. 
Peto V. Hammond, 249. 251, 317. 
Petre v. Espinasse, 199. 
Petts. 7iV, 449. 

Peyton V. Bladwell. 210, 222. 
Pliilipi's V. Duke of Bucks, 358. 

— V. Chamberlaine, 448, 449. 

— V. Evans. 44 7. 

— V. Philipps. 321. 322, .309, 371. 
Philippson v. Lorl Egrcmont, 293. 
Philipson V. Kerry, 4 29. 455. 
Philpotts I'. Philpotts, 375. 

Phi])|ien v. Stiekney, 225. 
Piekard v. bears, 54. 
Pickering v. Dowson, 99. 

— V. Pickering, 12.'), 101. 404, 

434. 

— V. Lord Stamford, 305. 
Pickett V. Loggou, 184, 190, 277, 345, 

347, 354. 



m 



tai;li: of i:n(;i.isii casus cnr.n. 



I'i.klo.4 r. rirkl.s. ".SI. .185. 
1*1. U^t.x-k r L\>tir. •-•rj. 
PidfiMk V. lU!<i)<n», I'l'A. 

lipjidl f. IViirico, IIA. 4I.'>. 

r. Strnttiin. M, Kt». I'ifi, lU'i*".. 

l*ike r. Vlp?r(«. Hi, Its-I. 

rUliii- V. Arm>tn.;o. i:;:i. i:?«. .S89. 

l-im r. Ii.*:ill, '.'H. 
I'inir r. Ik-attio. It". I. 
I'inkott V. Wnirlit. :!2:J. 
ril.luT I'. Uii;bv, li'.". 
riiitninoiu- r. Staph'. 376. 
I'latt f. Uniina};.-. I'l-'. 

rii'ilgc I-. 151189, :;".•;(. 

rioml.rU-.illi I. 1-Vasor. ICr.. :i02. 
I'Kws ami Mi.ldl. ton, A>. 'J'.M, 29-2. 
riunih r. Flintt, 2.M. 'IM. 'Jtl. 
l\Mlinoro r. (iutminir. '-7.'), ^54. 
r<.ill..n V. Mnrtin, 171. 
I'ollii!! V. Wnltor. M. -M. n2«. 

roolo f. siicrir'iiti, ;u>i. 

Poolov ••. lii-dWii, :5'.Hi. 

— ■ r. tiuilter, ir.l. 

I'opc V. Garlumi, 80. 1»2. 213, 255, 25f., 

3f.l. 
I'opliam V. Brook.', US, 192. 

— V. Kxliain. l.'iS. 
PortJirlin'rtoii, Lord, r Soulby. 370. 
Torllaml. Dukf of, v. Topiiniii, 272. 
I'.Ttii.an, Lord, »■. Mill. •'•"'. ■'>*'<\. 
P..rtiiior«'. Loril, r. Morris, 42S, 456. 
Fott V. Tmlliuntor, 2'm>. 
I'otts r. Siur. 1S«>. 18-2, 2H7, 306. 
P.mlsoii r. \Vclliiv.;ton, 218, 441. 
Powell r, Dillon. 244, 246. 

r. I>oubl»U', »'.:(. 

r. Lovc'.;rovt>, 135. 

— f. Thomas. 129. 
Fowls r. AiKlrcws, 44. 

_ r. Hardin;:. 'MO. 
Powhs V. ]'»(;»•, 2r>2. 
Pratt r. Hark.r, I'.M, l'.t2, 193. 
Prendirtfast ••. Turton, 3U2, 306, 807. 
Prevoat f. (Jratz, IC.o. 
Price t'. l{«Trinu'ton, 145, 383. 

_ V. Hrii-t', 4. -.3. 

— V. .loiH's, 447. 

— r. Lev. 421, 4. '.5. 

_ f. Miicaulay. •■2, 69, 74. 1i^. 79. 
:t.'(K, 359, 3tll. 

— f. North, 62. 361, 363. 
_ .'. Price, 191, 193, 195. 
f. Suhi-ltnrn, 135. 

Priddv '•• Ko«c, 322. 

Prid.aiix .'. lAHmMc. 161, 182,190, 194. 

'j-jit, :i92. 
t ri'lliaiM f. PhilippH, 291, 
Prince of Walfn A.'4Hurniice Co i-. PulnuT, 

2i80. 



Pritchard v. Merchaut.s" Life Asmiraiicc 

Socii'tv, 121. 43<i. 
Prltt I-. Chiy, 431, 434. 
Prohy I". Landor, 440. 
Procter V. I'oopor, 257, 265, 267. 
Pro.4or i. Kol.inson, 163, 193, 306, 380. 
Prole V. ScMidv, S'.i. 342. 
PriK)f I', llimi., If.ii, 190, 344. 
Prosser v. Rice, 235, 313. 
Proiidfoot V .Monleliur.', 120. 
Pryor r. Pryor, 27". 
PurIi, Ji'r, lV,(). 
Pulslbnl V. Kiehards, t.-j. (■:<, »',9, 73, 94, 

;;:i3. 339, 34o. :if.i, 39o. 

Pulvertoft V. Pidv.-rtolt, 227. 230, 235. 
Purcell V. K.llv, 31-2. 

— r. M.ietinniava, 171, 297. 306, 344. 
Piinlie «•. Mill.lt, 191. 
l'iir>t' »•. Snaplin, 4 19. 
Pusey I', bcsbouveric, 95, 298, 398, 401. 

QiEEX r. Saddler's Co. 93, 329. 

R.M>fUKKr. I'. Warrington, 357. 
Kallles I'. Wiiklchaus. 435. 
Uailton V. Matthews, 9ii. 
Uainsbottoni v. (Josden, 418. 

— V. Parker, 165, 184, 191. 

Unmsdcn v. Dvson, 117. 129, 131, 136. 

— V. Hviton. 203, -ml. 
Raii.lifTo V. Parkins, 'i.M, 3o4. 
Uaiidall V. Krrin-toii, i:.7. 158,300,849. 

— 1'. .Morixan, 202. 203. 

— »-. Willis. 217. 

i!ani,'er v Great Western Hallway Co., 

11.5. 
Rankinfif v. Tjjirncs. 270, 271, 272. 
Ifapti f. Latham, 114. 115. 
Kasl'idall 1'. I'ord. 90. 
Raw I'. Pole, 130. 
Rawlins t'. Wiekhnm.4S, 54, 69, 75, 78, 

SO, 81, 258, 334, 357, 359, 379, 393. 
Raworth v. Marriott, 171. 
Rawstone v. Parr, 426, 427. 
Rayner. I'.aker, 141, 318, 
Read V. Prcst, 381. 
Reade »-. Armslrotii:, 41'.». 

— i: l.ivini^sloiie, 2n,-). 206. 
Rcilmnn i-. Redman. 2 Mi. 
Reech V. Kenni^ate. 275. 
Reeil I". Norris. 175, 1S2. 

Reese River Silver Mining Co. lie Sinith'a 

Case. 74, 79. 
Reid f. Reid, 2<-,s. 269. 

_ V. Sher-old, 442. 
Reis I'. Kipiit^dde .\-siiranco Co., 121. 
Kenifrey r. Ihitler, Ion. 
RennieV. Yonn^;, 133. 
Ucvetl V. llnrvt'V. 178, 179. 
Rex r. Rurdett, 3S5. 

V. 1)11 lies 4 of Kiii;ptton, 294. 



TAIJLE OF i:N(iLISII CASIIS ( ITi;!). 



17 



Ilejnnrd v. Spcnce, -IMi. 
Ucyncll V. Sj.rvo, 41. M. 07. 7H. 7U. 81. 
Ill, :i7v, :>H2, :ts«, u'.tH, •mi. 

l{p3'nol(ls, t.r-]i<nte, 101, .'!1'.». 
Uliocies »'. IJiilc, Vi:\, ir)2. 1.13, k;.', 175. 
17H, 18'.>. 1K:!. ISl. 190. 

— V. iJi-nitvdir. If.:!, K'.fi, 17<>. 

— )'. Cooke, iHii, IHL', '2.')4. 
Rice V. Gordon, 1S7. 

— V. Uicc, in, M'.», 234, 321, 322. 
Uiciinrds v. Curlcwis, 1K5, 101. 
Uiciiaril.soii V. (ioss. 331 

— f. Iloiton, 214. 

— V. Sm!dl\v(»od, 203. 
Ilichc's »'. I'.viiiis. 2 1"!. 
lliclirnoiMi r. 'riiyli'iir, 44. 
Kidcr V. Kidder,' 2n'.t. 
Uidgway v. CJrny, tl.^J. 

— V. Nfwstcad, 30(5. 

— V. Siu'vd, 432, 453. 
Ridley V. Uidliy, 158. 
Ritifio V. liiiiiis, 175. 
Risliton V. Cobl), 450. 
llitchie II. Coiiper, 172. 
River's Case, 4 59. 
Roberts V. Croft, 250. 

— V. Roberts, 370. 

— t'. Tuiistall, 2y7, 301, 305, 300, 

307, 311. 

— V. Williams, 229, 377. 
Robertson v. Norris, lf.2. 
Robinsou v. Bri^rgs. 2H», 200, 317. 

— V. Dickenson, 430. 

— V. Musgrove, 03. 

— V. I'ett. l.'iO, 151, 150. 

— V. Lor<l Vernon, 44, 380. 

— 1'. AVall, 220. 

Robson V. Karl of Devon, 40, 73, 74, 81, 
3()0. :.32. 

— V. Yh\x.\\t, 317. 
Rochard v. Fulton, 200. 

Rociie V. O'Brien, 221, 297, 301, 311, 

434. 
Roddy V. Williams, O."., 241, 258, 200, 

201, 394, 395. 
Rodgers v. JIarsliall, 443, 445, 440. 
Roc V. CJalliers, 280. 
Rogers V. Bruce, 182. 

— V. lladley, 44, 389. 

Rolfe V. Gregory, 52, 152, 307, 309, 352. 

Rolleston v. Morton, 317. 

Ronnyne's Estate, Ee, 102. 

Rooke V. Lord Kensington, 421, 422. 

Roopcr 1'. Harrison, 130, 142, 320, 321, 

324. 
Rorke's Estate. Re, 260, 201, 262, 266. 
Ross V. Estates Investment Co., 68, 83, 

88, 92, 94,351. 
— I'. Steele, 178. 

Rothschild v. Brockman, 172, 174, 349. 
Routledge t-. Dorrill, 270. 



llowlcv '■. Uowlcv, 20K, 27.".. 
l:r)y »'." Dukeof iJeaiifort. iKt, 185. 
Ihi'sJK.iit I'. Turner. i:;8. 139. 
RiiH.sell )'. Iluininond. 199. 2<)7. 

— I'. JackHou, 61, 275, 279, 38C. 

Saui.kh v. .lackflon, 215. 

— V. Lee. 381. 
Snlkeld v. Vernon, 298, 310. 
Salmon v. Cults, •_".i7, 301, 391. 
Sake V. FioM, :;:;:. 

Saltern v. Mellllli^ll, 27.'.. 
Saltmarshe i-. liarrett, 402. 
Sanderson v, Wiii'^er, 158, 159. 
Sandford v. Handy, SK, 258. 
Sandforil v. Raikes, 452. 
Saunders v. Dehew, 234, 313. 
Saunderson v. Slarr, 148. 
Savage v. Carroll, 130. 

— V. Foster, 13(t. 148. 

— V. Mur])]iy, 2n,s. 

— V. Taylor, 31."). 

Saverv v. King, 105, 180, 182, 297, 300, 

3"l0, 335. 
Sawyer v. (Joodwin, 379. 

— V. Vernon, 42. 

Saxon L I'o Assurance Co., lie, 400, 430. 

Say )'. iJarwick, 147, 297. 

Sayer v. Sayer, 438, 441, 440. 

Schloss >>. Stiebel, 45n. 

Schneider v. Ileatli, lo2. 

Scholerteld t'. Templar, 4S, 51, 04, 336, 

400, 430. 
Scholtield )'. Lockwood, 419. 
Scott ;'. Dixon, 374. 

— V. liuidjar, 175. 

— V. Hanson, 83, 84, 86, 361. 

— V. Scott, 12.5, 184, 185, 216, 434. 
Scroggs V. Scroggs, 277. 

Sfaman v. Vawdrey, 103. 

Seddon v. Connell, 340, 380, 381. 

Segravc v. Kirwan, 171, 274, 334 

Selliy V. Jackson, 145. 

."^eliack V. Harris, 275. 

Sells I'. Sells, 421, 422. 

Selsej-, Lord, v. Klio.ides, 173, 302. 

Sclwav V. Fo^g, 328. 

Sehvnod V. Jlildmay, 450,452. 

Sepalino f. T\viUy,'270. 

Sercombe i'. Saunders, 193, 254. 

Serle, tx-jmrte, 101. 

Seward v. Jackson, 204, 200. 

Seymour v. Lucas, 280. 

SJmckleton v. Sutclifle, 03, 79, 9.'., 33tf, 

303, 393. 
Shand v. Grant, 414. 
Shannon v. Bradstreet, 303, 438, 441, 

443. 
Sharp V. Arbutlm.t. 248. 

— V. CossiT.itl, 2s7. 

— V. Leach, 193, oOl, 350, 387 



IS 



TAiiu: ov r.Nci.isii casus ciir.n. 



Slmrp r. Tnyl'T, '.M9. 
SImrplf!'!* r. Ailnniii. :tl3, 315. 
>liM\v ••. liiiiiny, Ii^'i. 

— r. .lotlory, M. '.'<><». 

— r. Noali-', 1< t>, '.Mm. 

— r. Thnokfrny, 147. 
Shcnril r Viiiablr!*, M, oM. 
Slu-nrman v. Miic;;rr;^>r, -IIH. 
SluHldcn r. rtttriik. li'.KJ. •i'.'l. 
SlieUl.in r. Cox. 'j:i.'>. 'ill, U.'.O. 
Slu'plicixl I'. I'ylius, lo7. 

— v. S\.nr\<i', hiO. 
Sherwin r. Sli!ikc>|iiarf. 318, 
SldTWiuxl V. Knldiiiis. r.l. 
Siiilljhoor r. Jarvis, 130. 
Slu|>'s Case. iVI. 
Sliirloy r. Davis, 401 

— •'. Slrattoii. lit'j.l. 
Slin"wsl>ury <k l]irmiiii;liaiii Hnil 

Co. v. liortli Wcalcrn Kail 

Co., 4 11. 
S]irtil>S()lo r. SuR.«nms, '2S1, '2S4. 
Sil.i.al.l r. Mill, \K\. 
JjiMn ring v. Karl of Balcarres, 304, 
Sibson r. Kilgewortii, 3iJG. 
Sidny »•. Unn-jer. ICrt. 349. 
Siebert r. Spuoiu-r, '2S1. 
Sillcni V. TliiinitDii, 7-, 121. 
Sinilisuii r. Lunl Ilowilen, 296. 

— p. Vaiii;liaii, -lUTt. 
>ims t'. Marryult, loo. 
.'^isiiK-v »'. KU'y, 378. 
Skarff r. Soulliv, 204. 
Skillbuck V. Hilton, 298, 
SkiiiiuT, cx-parte, 103. 

Skoltc.we V. Williams, 299, 304, 312 

Slater's Case, 27S. 

Slccch's <'as»', 425. 

Slim V. Croucher, 40, 47, 54, 09, 

342, 34.'., 351 1, 390. 
Slu\>ki-n V. Hunter, 270. 
Small V. Attwood, 73, 74, 302, 351, 
373. 

— f. Currio, 122. 
Smallman'.-* K-Uite, AV. 200. 
Siiifdicy »•. Varlcy, 101. 
S.iiilti V. Ablilori, 443. 

— r. IJak.-s, 307. 

r. liaiik of Scotland, 100, 

123. 

— V. IJromli-y. 377. 

— V. lirunin;;, 221. 

— ». Cannan, 212, 281. 283. 

— V. Capron, 212. 

— r. Ch. rrill. 2t>4. 205. 232 
_ V. Clorkf, 22r.. 

_ V. Clny. 3t»3, 304. 
v. Count rvtimn, 87. 

— r. I 

— r, < ■ '. 

_ V. 11..M.S,.. r.l, 101. 



way 
wav 



305. 



S33. 



3GG, 



12-j 



Sniitli i<. lliimt, 213 

— r. .Iilhwrt, 43.'i. 

— r. Kav, 74, 75, 03, 94, 152. 182, 

ls:i. 190. 1«.»3. '297, 382. 

— r. Mail land. 419. 

— V. .Marrablt , lo4. 

— r. I'ark.'f. 322. 

— V. I'awsiin. 3S4. 

— V. rincoinbi', 125. 

— r. IJeese Iliver .*^ilvcr M5nin{f Co., 
47, »<•», H\, '251. 'J55, 307, 3U9, 37'2. 

— V. 'riniinit, 2Sl, 'J.s3. 

— r. reulcrdonck, 135. 

— r. WliitiMiire. •J.S9. 290, 298. 
Sniitli'.s Ca-e, OS, 79, llo. 
Smillison v. I'owell, 05. 

Sniout I', llbery, 55. 

Smytii V. Uritlin, 377. 

Snell I'. Jones, 22.'». 

Snook V. Walti, 145. 

.Sii!)er r. Kemp, 335. 

Solomon »•. llonywooil, 102, 112. 

Somerset-sliiro Canal Vo. v. llarcourt, 

120, 130. 
South Sea Co, v. Bumpstoad, 44, 291. 
Spacknian's Case, 43. 203. 298.300. 801, 

311. 
Spaekman v. Tinibrell, 214. 
Spaii;lit V. Cownc, 123, 138, 139, 259, 

20O, '201, 317. 
Sponeer v. Topliam, 105. 
Spcttigue r. Carpenter, 292. 
Spirett I'. Willows, 204, '207. 
Si)ittal V. Smith, 182. 
Sprinp I'. IVule, 159. 
Spunner i'. Wal.-h, 92, 243, '244. 
."^purgeon v. Collier, 2o2. 
Scjuire v. Cami>bell, 418. 

— V. Whitton. 123. 
St, Albyn r. llardinjj, 381. 398. 
St. Aubyn v. Smart, 47, 330. 
St. George r. \Vake, 219. 
St. John V. St. John, 378. 
Stncev r. Klph, 102. 
Staekliouse i'. Countess of Jersey, 142, 

321, 322, 323. 
Stafford r. Stafford, 402. 
Stainbank v. IVrnley, 47, 340, 309, 381. 
Staines r. Morris, 39l. 
Stjunton I'. Carron Co., 100, 434. 
Stamford, luirl of. ••. Dawson, 350, 393. 
Standen «•. Slanden, 45o. 
Stanert v. I'arker, lt'>l,298. 
Stang.r r. Wilkins. 261, 283. 
Stanhope's Ca»c. 2f»3. 3no, ;jll. 
Stanilaud ». \N'ill..lt,393. 
StHtilry v. Bond, -Wi. 
SUmton I'. 'l'ulter!.Mll, 02, 03, 92. 392. 
btapilton t'. >i*oU. 4o'.». 411. 43o. 

— I', ."^laii lion. 40|. 

Steadiiiau i: Toole, 211, 249, 253. 



TAiU.i; or r.Nt.Ll; II CASI'.S ClTi;!). 



19 



Stomlmiin v. i'alliiiu', 17H, 'i'JB. 
Stcbl-iii;,' V. Wiilkcy. AVJ. 
Stcltliiii.i »'. Kdily, tiT. 
bteiliiiaii J'. ('<.llLat. \M. 

— V Hart, II.-.. 
Steed i\ (mII.v, 1 Hi. 

— V. W liil'takor, '.ir.Ct. 
Steel V. \U\\\U, U. 

Steeveii.s' IJKSpital v. l)ynH, 135. 
Sti'rt' I'. Andrews, 117. 
Stepliena v. Medina, Hil. 

— f. Ollive, 207. 

— r. Vennl.les, oil, III 2. 
Steiihensou v. Iloy.se, 2:i'.», 251. 

— V. Wilson, 107. 
Stepney I'. lUddulph, iMtl, ::17, "50. 
Stevens v. Lyneli, ;{'.>f., 402. 

— V. I'liied, 107. 

— V. Stevens, 111. 

Stewart V. AUiston, 02, 81, 3u9, 3G0, 
31". 1, 3G2, 31".:!. 

— V. Great We.stcrn Railway Co., 
•1."), 40, 47, 307. 

— V. Stewart, 12r>, 404, 434. 
Stewart'3 Case, 04, 255, 250, 202, 203, 

300, 301, 305. 
Stickland v. Aldridijc, 275. 
Stikeniau v. Dawson, 95, 148, 382, 384, 

3.S5. 
Stilenian v. Aslulown, 207, 208. 
Stilhvell t'. Wilkins, 187. 
Stocker v. Stockcr, 217. 
Stockloy V. Stocklev, 434, 
Stokes I'. Cox, 72, 121. 
Stokesley Union, Guardians of, v. 

Strothcr, 123. 
Stokoe V. Cowan, 209. 
Stone V. Denny, 54. 

— V. Godfrey, 302, 398, 399, 408, 
436, 455. 
Story V. Lord \Vindsor, 318, 319. 
Straehan v. Barton, 285. 
Straker v. Ewing, 390. 
Straniije v. Brennan, 104. 
S(ran^:ways v. Bishop, 18, 243. 
Stratford v. Bosworth, 455. 

— V. Twynani, 100. 

Stratford and Aloretou Kailway Co. v. 

Stratton, 388. 
Stratlnnore, Lady, v. Bowes, 217, 218. 
Stray v. raisscll,"l08. 
Street v. Blay, 331, 332. 
Stribbleliill v. Brett, 222. 
Strickland v. Turner, 4o0, 430. 
Stronsj V. Stroncr, 199. 
Strou^'hill V. Anstey, 249, 
Stuekley v. Bailev, 70. 
Stump V. Gaby, 48, 297, 298. 
Sturi:.; V. Stilrge, 19ii, 193, 398, 401. 

454. 
Stur-\s i: Morse, 809. 



Suiniiiers I'. Gridilim. 167. 190. 

Sumner v, rowell. 427. 

^urcouibe f. rinnit;er, 135, 

Siiriiiaii c. Parlow, 211. 

Sur. lice r. I .'Uhhworlli, 104. 

^utliciland r. BriL';,rs, 130. 

Sutt'.n V. Tenijde, lol, 

Swuinc V. Great Norllicrn Knilwoy Co., 

134. 
Swaisland v. DenrHley, 300, 412, 413. 
Swan I', Nortli Briti;;!! Australatian Co,, 

.'.4, 09, i:iO, 137. 
Sweet V. Soullicote, 316. 

Taite's Case, 807. 
Tall.ot V. Staniforth, 187, 
Talleyrand v. I5oulan2;er, 184. 
Tanner r. Klwortliy, 152, 182. 

— I', riiirence, 241. 
Tapp V. Lee, 94. 
Tarback i-. Marbnry, 207. 
TarletoD v. Liddell, 198, 354. 372. 
Tate V. William.son, 87, 151, 152, 153, 

171, 182. 190, 193. 

Tatliani v. Vernon, 445. 

Tayler v. Great Indian Peninsular Rail- 
way Co.. 137,138. 

Taylor, ex-partc, 148. 

— V. A.shworlli, 54, 55. 

— «•. r.,.ker, 241, 252. 

— V. lUillcn, 70, 99. 

— V. Cliichcster, «tc. Railway Co., 

290. 

— V. Hughes, 278. 

— V. Jones, 199. 

— V. Martindale, 62, 92, 

— V. Obee, 183. 

— V. I'ugh, 217, 218, 219. 

— V. Richardson, 452. 

— V. Salmon, 175, 373. 

— V. Sliuni, 277. 

— V. Stibbert, 234, 241, 244. 

— V. >tile, 227. 
Teasdale v. Teasdale, 130, 137. 
Teed v. Beere, 309. 

Teede v. Johnson, 39G, 

Terry v. Wacher, 193. 

ThaJker v. I'hinney. 20G. 

Theyer v. Tombs, 393. 

Thom V. Big'.and, 54, 55, 57, 326. 

Thomas v. Frazer, 425. 

— I'. Powell, 343, 407. 
Thompson v. Barclay, 47, 3G9, 

— V. Caitwriglit, 2G1. 

— V. llarii-son, 381. 

— V. Iktfernan, 193, 

— V. Simpson, 130. 

— V. Smith. 444. 
_ V. Tomkins, 142. 

— V. AVebster, 199, 205, 206, 
207, 208. 



•J!) 



t.m;i,i: of i:N(ii,i>M casks < rn:i). 



i;,..ril..T r J-liruni, 1>»-'. '.'M. 208. 

'rh-Tiuliko •• Iluiii. :;i:!. :;'j... 
■lliuriutt t. lliiiiiis. 'J-.*!. 
'UxTliliill r. V.v; 11!.. 1S4. 
'Ih.'ri-o v. .llu•k^..n. 426. 
Tlivnn V. Thvnn. Ufil. 
Tihl.'.lov r. 1,.mI-.'. U3l>. •J.M. JUO. 
To»M ..'\\ils..n, 104. 
Tolt r. Stfplicnsdii. SOS. 
T. kcr r. T..k. r. 1k;>. 1'i;«, 387. .".91. 
I 11 t ,: T.'ll-t. Jin. .|I'J. li:.. 

r..'i lUnn IV i-.i-h. rj;!. 

Toniuu'v I'. ^VIliu', "J'.'S. 

Toiiiw>n r. Juilfre, I'J.'i, 17t». 

Toi.lmni I-. Kuke of I'l.rtluncl, 51. 209. 

272. 
Toulinin v. J>tccTe, 20S, 2G0, 202, ."517, 

o24. 
Timrville ••. Nnisli, r.l9, 370. 
To wart- r. Sollers. 143. 
Townc. cx-portf, 101. 
Townen.l r. T.-kcr. 200. 231, 232. 
TownsenJ v. t'liainpcmowiie, 390, 391. 

— t'. Crowtlv. 414. 

— r. Lowfu'l.i. 384. 

— V. Wcstacolt, 395. 
Townshcnd, Lord, v. Stangroom, 421, 

428. 429, 450. 
Traill v. IJariiiff, 45, C7, 75, 355, 383. 
Tniuhard v. W anlev, 45. 384. 
Trcvclyan v. CliarUr. 173. 174, 340,350. 

— V. Uiiile, 340. 

Triggew. Lavalc-c, 125, 404, 407, 4n8, 

434. 
Trower v. Newccmo, 82. 83. 
Tucker r. I'iiij.ps, 275. 
Tulk t'. Moxh.iy, 235. 
Turner v. llarvi-v, 97. 

_ r. Hill. 3M. 
Turcinaiul r. Kni<;lit. 380. 396. 

Turtoll r. l{^•Il^ 210, 322. 

Twoiidi-ll I'. Tweddill. IHO. 
TwiidalL- V. Tw.cdalc, 20O. 
Twilling f. Moricp. 302. 
Twvford I'. Wartiii). 07. 
Twvne's ('a.«f, 19'.t, 200. 
Tvki- V. \\\h\\ 251. 

Tyrrell v. iWmk of London, 103, 100, 
172, 174, 175, 340. 

Ldeli. v. Atlierton. 97. Ill, 112. 
Ulrich r. Lilelitield, 448, 453. 
Lmlerliill r. llorwood. ls4, 187,425. 
I'nderwood i'. Ixrd Coiirtown, 303. 
UniUd .SUUh, liunk of, v. DavieH, 262, 
203. 

— — V. IIouHeiiinn, 200. 

— V. I'riee, 420. 
Unity Hank, rr/wWr, 14S. 

I pjiuigton r. BuUen, 105, 100, 107, 191, 
19^ 371. 



I'jitoii •'. Vniincr, 130. 
I riiiMttin r. I'aU;, 407. 



AN r. Cori.c. 80. 92. 244. 255. 
nncouver r. Hli^H. 39ti, 31tl. 3'.)2. 
i.ndel.\ir I' nia-ravf, 137, 138, 139. 
ano I'. Cobhold, '.'5. 
— V. Kletciier. 274. 
an Epjis r. liarr":H«n, 8 1, 80. 88, 
— V. Van K|>|i«, 151. 100. 
aii^lian v. Vatl(U'r^t<•^;«•ll, 1 19. 
.-iii^liton I'. Noble. 151. 
auxlinii Lridge Co. v. Spencer, 22L 

341. 
"eiieziiela, Ceiitrnl Unihvay Co. of, v. 

Ki.-^eh. 
eriiedu r. Weber, 70. 
enion v. Key.^. 78, 82, 87, 88. 

— V. Vernon, 441. 
iekers v. Hell, 193. 
igers I'. Pike, 70. 79, 302, 867. 
ignolles V. IJowen, t'i3, 255. 
illiers V. Villiers, 384. 
ine r. .Miteliell, ln2. 
iver-s v. Tuek, 35'.». ' 
orley V. Cooke, 49, 312. 
'j-vyan f. Vyvyan, SOL 



Wade v. Paget, 442. 
Wa-.stair V. Kead, 309. 
Wake f. llarrop. 418, 428. 

— r. Wake, 453. 
Wakefield V. Gibbon. 200. 
Waldron v. Sloper. 138, 141. 
Wabord V. Adie, 202. 203, 303, SCO, 307 
Walker v. Arni.strong. 420. 

— r. Burrows, 2U8. 

— t'. Smith. 170. 171. 380. 

— V. SvMK.ii.ls, 91. 124, 125, 180, 

2i"t7. 3(13, 384. 
Wall i: Cockerell. 138, 139, 297, 301, 802. 

— V. Stubbs. 84, 303. 
Wallaee r. Wallace, 182. 
Wallgnive v. Tebbs, 279. 
Waliisf. lliirrison. 113. 

— V. Duke of Portland, 195. 
Wallwvnn r. Lee, 315. 320 
Walmsley r. Hootli, 103, 100, 303. 
WaWi r. Studdert. 170. 

Wal.-liarn v. Sfainton, 47, 51, 172, 809, 

308, 371. 37'.», 380. 
WalterH r. Maunde, 242. 

— V. Morgan, 97, 100, 358, 805, 
392. 
Walthara p. Brougliton, 43. 
Ward I-. Pootli. 274. 

— V. Hartpole, 100, 170, 340, 372. 

302. 

— r. Lant. 370. 

— f. Slinllett. 203. 

— V. Tratlien,843. 



t.\i;li; of i;n(;i,isii casks citi:!). 



21 



Mnr.lc V. Dickson, ISO, 'JdH. 

Wiinlcn I'. .I..IICS, n, i:Hi, li()2, MW. 

AVnriloiir v. lU'ri.-.lor(l, '^75. 

Wiiri- V. i:;j;m()iil. 'S.'.H, 231), 240, 280, 254. 

^VnI■in;l t'. Wariiif;, 14(1. 

M'niiicr c. DiiiiiclH. 7H. 10<>, 408. 

Warrick i'. W nrrick 'JMi, 430. 

Wiirriii r. Tlioiiiiis, li'.KJ. 

W asoii r. Wui'in;x. -'"'-• 

Waters r. Bailey, l.^•_', 182. 

— r. (Iroom, 10(». 

— V. Tiiorn, IGl, 297, 298, 390. 
Watson V. Toonc, 101. 

— V. Marston. 357, 398. 411,11 'J. 
Watt r. (J rove, 104, 173, 191, Ut2, 344, 

3r.2, :!so. 
Watt8 I'. Urooks, 379. 

— V. Crt-s.-wcll, 148. 
Wav V. Iloarno, 93. 
Webb V. lirookes 402. 

— t'. liyni;, 452. 

— I'. Korke, 42, 194. 
Webster v. ("ecil, 412, 4.15. 
Webster's Case, 250. 

Wcdilerbiirn v. Wedderburn, 101, 297, 

298, 31 »8. 
Welcliiiian v. Covcntrv Union Bank, 240. 
Welles V. Midilleton, 170. 
Welleslcy v. Lord Mornin£;ton, 208. 
"Wensley, cx-purto, 281, 2S3, 285. 
Wuntwortb v. Lloyd, 105, 174, 306. 
West r. Du Wczele, 435. 

— r. Jones, 54, 137, 138. 

— v. Rav, 274. 

— V. Reid, 238, 239, 240, 241, 254, 

257. 
Westby v. Westby, 434, 454. 
"Western Bank of Scotland v. Addtc, 48, 

54, 93, 111, 112, 113, 116, 326, 330, 

335, 330, 337. 
Wethcred v. Wetlicred, 222, 224. 
Whalley c. Wballev, 52, 189, 192, 193, 

302, 304, 305, "3 10, 312. 
Wharton v. May, 344. 
Wheeler v. CarVl, 2o3. 
Wheelton v. llardisty, 72, 74, 93, 111, 

110, 121. 
Whclan V. Whelan. 194. 
Whiehcotc v. Lawrence, 158. 
Whitbread v. Jordan, 239, 206. 
SVhitcombc, 7»V, 104. 
White V. Bradshaw, 03, 359. 

— t'. C'uddon, 83. 

— V. I)anion, 357. 

— V. Carden, 48, 329. 

— V. Hall. 44. 

— r. Small, 146. 

— v. Waketield. 129, 247. 

— r. Wakley, 135. 
Whitchous>'fl Case, 307. 
Whitlitdd V. Taussett, 239. 



, Whllimirc V. ( lurifli^u, 2S;}. 

I — V. .MackcHi.ii, 48. 839, 343. 

I — t'. .Ma«()M, 2h0. 

Whitni-y '•. Allaire, 330. 

WhiMin"y:(on v. Jentiintjfl. 208. 

Whilworth ?•. (lau-aiti, 3lH, 389. 

Whytc- I'. Meade, 193. 

Wickcs /'. Cooke. 200. 

WicMiani v. \\ ickliain, 115. 

Wii;t,'r. Wit;;;, "2n. 

Willjnr V. lluwe, 22 L 

Wild V. llilla.s. 407. 

Wilde I-. Gibson. 50, 92, 97, 112. 114, 
259, 200. 357. 3r.O. 

Wilkie V. Holmes, 4li:. 

Wilkinson v. liraytield, 277. 

— V. Fow'ke.x, 335, 3) t, :'.:.o, :;."■), 

371. 

— V. J(jU'j;hin. 354. 

— V. Nelson. 423, 428. 

— V. Stafford. 1»5. 
Wilkinson's Case, 203. 

AVillan v. Willan, 19o, 191, 192, 193, 357, 
4O0. 
' Willats V. Bnsby. 230. 
Williams v. Bayley, 143, 183, 184, 194. 

— V. Lambe, 320. 

— V. Livescy, 240. 

— V. IJewellin, 300. 

— V. l'i-u;ott, 107. 

— V. ^milh. 19o, 298, 307, 372. 

— V. Wcntworth, 145. 

— f. AVilliam.s, 181,434. 
Williamson f. Brown, 230. 

— V. Gihon, 221,345. 

— V. Henderson, 425. 

— V. Seabur, 349. 
Willis V. Willis. 90. 

I Willou<;hby V. WilloujThby, 313, 314, 320. 
I Wills V. Sti-adlin^, 130. 
1 Wilson V. Puller, Hi. 

— V. Hart, 238, 252, 257. 

— r. Piijirott. 441. 

— V. Short, 40, 79, SO, 174, 254. 344. 

— V. Sinclair, 403. 

— V. West Harlcpool Railway Co., 

135. 

— V. Wilson. 417, 418. 
■Wiltshire v. Marshall. 147. 

— J'. Rabbits, 142. 
Winch V. Winchester, 65, 361, 304. 
Windsor, Dean and Chapter of, v. I'en- 

vin, 288. 
Winter v. Brc ckwell, 134. 
Wintour v. Clifton. 453. 
Wolfe V. Frost, 135. 
Wallaston's Case, 110. 
Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank- 
ing Co. V. Marston, 212. 
Wood V. Abrey, 186. 187, 190, 194, 392 
I — I'. Barker, 2 1 5. 



TAiti.i: or r.Nci.i.-ii cAsr.s (iti,i>. 



Wood r. I)ixic/_'rj. 

— r. l'ci"ins. I'jri. \C.ll, IC>», 170, 

•Ji»7. 

— r. l»\vnrric, 121. 

— r. (iiinitli. 117. 

— r. Scftrth. 4 1 1. 4 12, 1 in, iri.'.. 
WoocltmiitH f. Anglo-Auiitraiiiiii, Ac. Co., 

27S, :{2:{. 
Wootlhousc r. MorcdHl). 158, 17:5, 171. 

— r. Murrrtv. 2S0, 281. 

— I. Sli.-|.li"y. 22H. 
Wocxlw.ird f. Millir, 22.'!. 
Woollain r. llcnrn. -IIS, 'ir>ti. 
Worcistor ('urn ICxcli.inije Co., /\e, 2C2. 
AVdnnnId r. MnilliUid. 235, 250, 260. 
Worndl I-. .Iiicul), -12'.'. 

Worsloy r. De Mnttos, 100, 201, 220, 
2SO. 

— r. Frank, -101, 4l:t.lU. 

— V. Lonl Si'arli(>riiii';l(, '_'.')'.•. 
^V(>^tllinI;t«ln »•. Morjjnn, 111, 2."il. 
AVorfliV Cnso. 11 C, X.i'J, 'MO. 
W.irtl.y v. i;irkliead, 324. 
Wrif^lit, ix-jxtiir, 421. 

— t». Crookcs.SSS. 

— ». Ooff. 42:!. 

— t;. 11 1. ward, n03. 

— e. rn.ud, ir.l, 170, 102. 

— V. iSiiowe, 148. 



Wrij;lil I. \ nii.l.rplnnk, 179. 3ul, .'iOj. 

:iof.. ;;ll, :;iU. 
Wri:;lcv r. Swainson, 22ii. 
Wrou^lit r. DnvicH, i:i8. 
Wynll I'. Hnrwi'll, 2M\. 
Wyilifrloy v. Wythfili-y, 193. 
Wyconilii' Unilwny Co. v. Uonnin^rtoii 

ll<i-<|>ilnl. 412. 
W\ld, rjr-fxDtr, tjy:!. 
WVllie V. rolli-n, 250, 2('.l. 
Wyso V. Liindn-rt, 152, 171, 17i'«, IK.'J, 

105. 
Wytlu'S V. LnboucluTf, 122, 2C0. 

Yr.oM.VNs V. Willinms. 80, 12i'., :!n. 
York and Nortli Miillund Railway Co. i'. 

Hudson. lf>l. 
York l>uililin;rs Co. v. M'Ki'nzio, 158, 

lOO, 172, 17:?. 174, 175, :}46, 347. 
Younir V. I'l.-fclKT. 212, 281, 283. 

— ' f. Crote, l:;o. 

— r. (;uy, i:5S. 

— r. r.'aVli.-v. 170, 27:}, 277. 

— r. Waller", 447. 

— V. \V:iud, 2S0, 2S:J. 

— V Wl.ito, 138. 

ZuLUETA V. Tyrie, 130. 



TAliLI' OF AMERICAN CASES CITED. 



Abbpv f. Dowcv, 01. 
Abbott f. Allen". KM, n:?4. 

— 1'. Goodwin, 'ilU. 
Abel V. Cave, X\-l, Xi',. 
Abney v. Kint;-il:incl, "211. 
Admiis V. SoMJi'. s:!. 
Atltlii)u,t«)n r. I'.tlieritlc^p, 213. 
A'^riciiltural Hank r. iJorsev, Sl.'l. 
Aiken r. Hnu-n, '228. 
Aills )'. Gralinni, 11)2. 
Al(iriil'j:e v. Weems, 410. 
Alexander v. K'-rr, i;!4. 

— V. Newton, 418. 

— V. Pendleton, .31 ■. 

— r. Ultez, 2<.»0. 
Allen V. Addiiiu,ton, ;52tj. 

— t', llainniond, 411"). 

— V. llopson, 44, 104, 355. 

— V. Knnney, 202. 

— V. Sanders, 234. 

— V. Wanumaker, 325. 

— V. \Vin.ston, 131. 
Allison V. Mattliieii. 108. 
Alston V. Outerbridge, 103. 
Ani03 V. Blunt, 212, 
Ai.derson v. Bennett, T5, 79. 

— V. Bradford, 198. 

— V. Green, 227, 228, 220. 

— r. Hall, 84. 

— V. Hill, 320. 

— V. Johnson, 328. 
Andrews v. Brooks, 211. 
Ai>pleton V. Ilorton, 339. 
Armstrong v. Campbell, 157. 

— II. CushiniT, 328. 

— V. Tufts, 328. 

— V. Tuttle, 213. 
Armnn r. Stout, 144. 
Arnett v. Wanett, 206. 
Arthur v. Arthur. 397. 
Ash I'. Savaije, 210. 
Ashbrook v. Watkins, 415. 
Ashniead v. Hean, 199. 

.\ shunt V. Martin, 212. 
Ask t: Putnam, 108. 



Astor V. ■\Vell.'5, 202. 
Atkinson v. .lordnn, 212. 
Atwood V. Wriijjht, 325. 
Austin i: Clark, 212. 
Austin i\ Winston, 377. 
Averill v. Guthrie, 323. 
Aylelt V. Kinjj, SOC. 
Ayres v. Mitehell, 299, 334, 384. 

— V. Moore, 200. 

Babb ?'. CIcmson, 210. 
Babcock V. Case, 79, 327. 
Baekentoss v. Spoichcr, 110. 
liackhousc v. Jetts, 345, 
Bacon v. Bronson, 333. 

— t'. Johnson, 61, 342. 
Badger v. Badijer, 3u3, 309, 867. 
Baham v. P>aeli, 225. 

Bailey v. Burton, 107. 

— V. Jordan, 01. 

— V. Snyder, (15. 

— V. Trammel, 149. 
Bain v. Wilson, 327. 
Baines v. AVilliams, 310. 
Baker v. Howell, 187. 

— V. Pobbins, 327. 

— V. Welch, 206. 
Baldwin t'. Alli-son, 155. 

— r. Johnson, 245. 

— V. Marshall, 265. 

— ?•. Uichman, 133. 
Ball V. Livelv, 327. 
Ballanco v. Underbill, 418. 
Balsdbaugh i'. Frascr, 164. 
Baltimore Mar. Ins. Co. v. Dalrymplc, 

161. 
Bancroft v. Blizz.ard, 202. 
Banker v. Mills, 172. 
Bank of Alexandria v. Atwater, 207. 
_ — V. Patton, 206, 22S, 

229. 

— Georgia v. Hiirginbottom, 48. 

210. 

— Orleans c. Torrev. 150. 

— Pittsburg V. Whitehead, 262 



r\r.i i: »)i' ami'-KKan cAsr.s ciri:!). 



Itnnk of r. S. v. I'r 'Nmi. •_'":;. 
_ _ r. Ihiiiirl. :i'."7, 4(»'2. 

— — r. Dnvis. 'HVi. 
__ _ |.. Lw. llVt. 

Honk r. Goro. nJK. 
— r. WtiUnston, 1*27. 
Ikinks r. Jmliili. 171. «03, a07. 

— r. Mnrtiii, 'J«>2. 
l»iirrlny v. l)aviil.s(>n. I'J'J. 
r.iinilunu f. Hraiil. iMil. 
llarliain r. •rulMTVill.-. 118. 
liarru's r. Camiirt. I'J.'). 

— r. Cariimck, M. 

— r. McKny. 132. 
Harnett r. Kcrpus. '21H. 

__ r. Sprutt. 187. 

— V. Stanton. 71. 101, 300. 
Harney r. Saiuulcr.>», l.')l, l.'i»>. 
liarr /■. Hrondwav Ins. Co. 417. 

_ V. llatcli.fi". til. 
l?nrri:i<-asf> »•. MiMnrray, 227. 
Iliirron r. AlcxancU-r, lOl. 
IJarrv f, Wliitnoy, 10:{. 
llartio r. Natl. :i71. 
Hartli-nian r. Douglass, 215. 
IJartlftt !•. Williams. 211. 
llart.m v. ^^•^s. 171. 
]?a.«s .•. Gillilanil, 419. 
lintos I'. Norcro»s, 204. 
iJau'rher v. Duplioin, 202. 

— r. Merrynian, 194. 
Baxter v. Cdstnn, l.')7. 

— i;. Gaines. 21(>. 
Ruvaril r. Ilcifrmnn, 2U0. 
liavnanl v. Ni.rris, a70, 419. 
H.-ach r. (»llc-ndorf. 215. 
Ikal V. Warren, 228. 

lienu i;. llirrick, 79, 82, 333. 

— V. Smith, 209, 313. 

— V. Vail.', ;ii-.4. 
Heard c Camphell, 78. 

— t> Huhlile, 421. 
lieardsley r. |{<Minett, 104. 

_ r. Kni-lit, 418,419. 
r.eaiihien v. IIi-auMen, 3MX, 307. 
Heauj.land v. M«K«en, 129, 133. 
Ueek i: Simmons, 34:{. 419. 
li<rkwitli f. iiiitler, 144. 
lifdfl r. Loomirt. ]H0. 
Bedford V. Crane. 2<i7. 
Heers V. Hotlnfonl, ^M.-}. 

— r. l)aw>on, 211. 

— r. Willianw. 107. 
lieerflcy r. llnmilton. :i71. 
lleeHOIl I'. JJee.Moli, l.'>8. 
I$ein r. lleatli, 149. 
Hehlier r. J'.elcher, 42. 147. 
l;4dknni. r. Senlev. 01. 0.'.. 00. 
H»-ll r. i'.laiiey. 227. 22'.'. 

— r. Hvernon. 77. 

— r. licnder»on, 77, 300. 



liell r. .Mr( anlev. 228. 

— V. I'rie.'. 447. 

— V. Steel. :;97. 
Hellamv v. Hellamv. l.'iS. 
Mellows i: Steno. 4 Id. 418. 
Hendnrant v. < 'rawford, 323. 
lienediet r. iMlman. 225. 
Bennett v. Fail. :!"•<•. 

— V. .Iiidson. 55. 111. 325. 

— r. Inion Hank. 197. 
Benton v. .tones. 2im;. 

— r. Stewart. ".27. 
Benzein v. Lenoir, 2:59. 
llrfT V. Ka.lcliire, 427. 
Berkcr r. Vrooman, 327. 
Herrien v. MeLane, 170. 
Bett.s V. (Jiinn. 410. 
Beverly v. KUis. 2r,|. 

— V. Kennolds, 291. 
Bibb V. rrallier. 350. 

— V. Sniitli, 105. 

Bidaidt r. Wales, 108, 109, 110. 
Bis^elow e. Barr, 4<tO. 
Bi:r:,'s »•. Barr v. lo9. 
Bill V. Webb,' 1. '.4. 
Bin),'aman r. Hyatt, 230. 
Bird r. Aitken.*2t>l. 

— r. Bmiton. 131. 

— V. Bolduc. 2(10. 
Birdsong v. liirdsong, 124. 
Birely v. Staley, 40. 
BischofT V. Lueas, 327. 
Bi-ssel I'. ]Ioi)kins, 211. 
Black t'. Jones, 217. 

— 1'. Tli.irnton, 235. 
Blac'lnvood r. .lones, 132. 
Hlair r. McDonnell, 419. 
Bluisdell V. Cowell, 3S3. 

— V. SU'Vens. 236 
Blake v. Graham. 204. 

— V. .lones, 2o7. 

— f. Pick. 124. 
Blanchani v. Tyler. 318. 
Blankenskip r. "Douglass, 248, 
Blen V. Bear Hiver, etc., Co., 829, 
Blessing 1'. Bealty, 419. 

Blight V. Banks, '318. 
Bliss r. Cottle. 328. 
Blodgetl V. Uobart, 419. 
Blount 1'. Kohesiin, 172. 
Blow V. .Maynard, l.')5. 203. 
Blumenthali'. Brainerd, 259. 
Blydenl.ureh v. Welsh. 299. 
Bogard v. Gardley. 207. 
BoiTgs V. Merced cl <il, 132. 
Bohn I', lleadley, 233. 
Hoils r. Boils, \W. 
Bi.lt I'. Uogers, 374. 
Bond I'. Brown. 3(»4. 

— e. Clark. 32.V 
Boon r. Mill.r, 41.'.. 



TAIJLE (»!■ AMIIUICAN' CAHMS CITKI). 



23 



l?oono I', riiilos, 30(1. 308, 3ti2, ."T' 
Huuth V, Itariiii n, '2'M. 

— I', liiiolli, :{(■.«. 
liori'iiii^ I'. Siiii;«rv, 11. 
Korliin.l r. Wallv.T, IVC, ;!I5. 
Uossnnl r. Wliitc, lit; J. 

UoHloii Wiitir I'owcr (!o, v. Gniy, 
Host wick V. I>i\vis, ;!20. 
Hnswcll V. liiiclmmiii, 318, 
15.)l.-<|()r,l ,-. .MrI,.'iiM, 113. 
13ou(k V. WillxT, IKi. 
Houliii V. I'olloik, 117. 
Howcrs I'. Joliiison, 112. 
Howiiiun V. MiitcH, 97. 

— V. Hi'rriiifij, 'ill. 

— V. W atlR'H, 301. 

Boyco V. (Jnmdy, Id, 7l», 331, 313 

— V. Waller, 313. 

— V. AVntson, 71. 
Boyd V. Bnrcliiy. 374. 

— V. Bopst.'io;-.. 

— V. Brown, 325. 

— V. Duiilai), 210. 

— V. Hawkins, 154, 297. 

— V. Yaiitlorkcnip, 25P. 
Boyer v. Wilson, 437. 
Boznian v. ])r.Hi;;!;lian, 200. 
Bracken v. :Millcf. 2r>;), 3ir>. 
Brnckeniidi^o v. Holland. 3St). 
Bradbur}- r. Keas, 331, 333. 

— V. White, 417. 
Bradle}' v. l?osiev, 73. 

— V. Chaso", 2!t8. 391. 
Brady v. Briscoe, 2ni». 
Brainerd v. Jh-airierd, 388. 
Brantley ''. Key, 154. 

— ' V. West, 421. 
Bra.shear i'. West, 212. 
Brcck V. Cole, 215. 
Breed ('. Conlcy, 204. 
Breininel v. Stockton, 211. 
Brenlon v, Davis, 1()7. 
Brewer v. Lyncli, 173. 

— V. Vanarsdale, 178. 
Brice v. Bricc, 144. 
Bridgcn v. Atkins, 174. 
Briggs V. Parknian, 210. 

— V, Taylor, 239. 
Bright V. Boyd. 444. 
Brinkeriiof t'. Brown, 45, 154. 

— f. Lansing. 370. 
Broad well v. Broad well. 91, 397. 
Brock V. Barnes. 103, 170. 

— V. McKautrhtrey, 383. 
Brodduc !'. (all, 297. " 
Broddus v. McC'all, 84. 
Brogden v. Walker. 144, 383. 
Brooke v. iVrry, 173, 345. 
Brooks V. llaiuilton, 61. 

— V. Powers, 211. 

— V. Winier, 213. 



447. 



388. 



Brothers v. Porter, l.'il. 
Browcr t'. Peaiiody, 31.'i. 
Bnjwn V. Ander.Mon, 24 .'i. 

— V. Arnii'-fead, 397. 

— V. iiuck.H, 'S2H. 

— f. I)onald. I9i'>. 

— r. Lanipli.ar. 410. 

— 7'. Lynch. 225. 

— V. Met 'line, 148. 

— V. McDonald. 199, 208. 

— r'. .Murphce 107. 

— V. Uilev, 211. 

— r. .Siniili, 201. 

— V. Wel)i), 2(12. 

Bruce V. Davenjiort, 172, 299. 
Bueldcr v. Cloninger, 375. 
Brncn v. Ilone, 3:;5. 
Bryan v. Duncan, l.'>7. 
Bryant »-. Kclton, lil 1. 

— V. Man.sfield, 375, 397. 
Buelianan r. Horney. 329. 
Budincr >: Forker, 353. 

Buck I'. McCaugiitry, 101, 335, 344. 

— V. Sliertnan, 384. 
Buckcr V. Lightner, 310. 
Buckingham I'. Smith, 132, 133, 244. 
Buckley »'. Artchcr, 109. 
Buckner v. Calcote, 311. 
Bullalow V. Buffalow, 140, 164. 
Bul'ord )'. J5rown, 30i>. 

— V. Caldwell, 55. 
Bulkley v. Starr, 292. 
Bullish. Borden, 211. 
Bullock /•. Beemis, 345. 

— V. Irving, 201. 
Bum V. Ahl, 200. 
Bumpass v. Dotson, 201. 

— ('. Phitncr. 310. 

— V. \Vebl>, 291, 447. 
Bunch )•. Ilur.st, 144. 
Bunting v. Kicks, 239. 
Burhank ;•. Hammond, 196. 
Burchill ,: Marsh, 447. 
Burley v. Uussell, 148. 
Burnham v. Chandlcy, 204. 
Burrill )'. Bull. 172. ' 
Burrows v. Alter, 328. 
Burtch )'. Hogge, 364. 
Burt i: Wilson, 400. 
Burton ?■. Willcrs, 77. 
Butler ('. Durham, 420. 

— f. Haskell, 144, 173, 184, 18n, 

187, 189, 297. 

— V. Stoddard, 201. 
Butler's Ajipeal, 97. 

Byers v. Surget, 169, 187. 188, 295v. 

Cady V. Owens, 127. 
Cain 1'. Guthrie, 299. 
— r. Jones, 229. 
Caldwell V. Barilc'.t, 313. 



L'4 



T.Vr.l.K OV AMTIiHAN CASES CIIED. 



(.'alilwi'll V y Mhnvill, ;>.>'>. 

— r. ('iirrin^ton, 2o1. 

— f. (JillH. uiy. 

— r. Tftu'in>rt. 157. 
_ f. W liitf. 345. 

— f. WilliaiiiH. 128. 
Cnllon r. Tlii>inj>M»n, 'Jll. 
Callis f. Ili.l.uit. ir.-J. 

— r. Wii.l.ly, :U0. 
('nnur<M» «•. iniiuron. '-2<\ 
Ciimp f. I'imiji. "'•', >»1, 83. 
Ciui>i>Ih'1I f. i iirUT, 3".i9. 

— r. Johnson, 157. 

— r. Sloiiii, 203. 

— V. Viiiinir, 310. 

— r. V,i(<tern. AiS. 

— r. Wliittiuirlmm. 103. 133. 
rninplin v. Kurt on, 314. 
Canal Co. v. (ionlon, M. 
Cannon «■. Jenkins, UU. 
Cnpehart v. Moon, 40". 
Carlicrry r. 'raiinehill, 358, 411. 
Cnni V. "Wnlliicc. 44(i. 
Cardwi'il V. MiClfllnnd, 101. 
Carlisle r. Uiih. 198, 2o7. 
Curr V. liol). 311. 

— V. Ciilia-han, 103, 124, 319, 41fi. 

— r. Hill. 2U0. 

— r. AVallate, 129, 131. 
Carroll r. I'ottcr, 49. 

— r. Ivic.', 299, 306, 315. 

— V. Sl.ickls, 2ir>. 
Carpenter*'. Hart, 293. 

f. K>ir, 20)). 

— V. Stillwell, 128, 
Cnrson v. Bailie, 100. 
Curler p. Caitkberry, 231. 

— V. Ca.Mleliury, 227. 

— f. Chaiiipioii, 204. 
Cnser. Carroll, 109. 

— t>. (Jarisli, 215. 

— V. Hall. inr,. 

— V. Jcnnin}jj«, 315, 

— V. riitlp-, 207. 
Casoy V. AiUn. 54, 70, 384. 

— V. Caaev, 173. 

Catlicarl v. Uobinson, 227, 304, 413. 

417. 
Catlin V. C.rote, 131. 
(Veil V. Spvir-er. lol.327. 
Cc-ntru'. IJank i-. Copelaml, 184. 

Ina. Co. V. rroU'Ction Ins. Co., 

170. 

f l.f.tr-e r. Fori. lOS. 109. 

( li.iliiti r. Kiinlmll. 22S. 

I liuinlierlain i-. rill^lairy, 190. 

r. '1 lioiiiimnn, 419. 

(1 1 . .-1 .-.ju' i.. .Mar.-ii. 410. 

( lie r. TenipU', 45, 4i'>. 

, . White, ;!2S. 

Ui»nij;liii V. Lay tin, 241, 399. 



rhanilUr v. \ViL"„'in~. 105. 
Chnpin v. ^en^e. 197. 
_ V. Weed. i:)4, 
Clinimnn ••. Ciinpinan, 358. 
( harl.H r. Duhose, 1^7. 
riiarltun v. I.iay. 190. 
Clienery v ralimr, 21 1. 
( lurry i'. New>oni.29". * 

Clwslerman v. (uinlner, 104, 382. 
lliew V. Cnloiit. 211. 

— r. Calvert, 134, 241. 
niiekerini: r. Ilateli. 201. 
Chilli I'. Brener. l.'>7. 
Ciiil>Mian r. Hrii^s^-'. 00. 
Chisholin V. (Ja.U.len. 93. 
Chohan v. Jonc-*, 201. 
Chophnril I', liayj.r.i, 213. 
Chotiteau V. Siiernian, 202. 
Christian v. Scott, 329. 
Christinas r. Mitohell, 241. 

_ »•. Spink, 384. 
Chnmar r. W0...I, 21«». 
Church r. StcrliiiiT. 172. 
Citv Coiuicil r. Viv^o, 200, 316. 
Clahauirh »-. Byerly, 128. 
Clapp V. Leatlierb'-e, 231. 

— r. TirrcU, 227. 230. 
Clapton V. Co/art, 79, 32.5. 
Clark f. Bairii, 1">4. 

— V. Clark. 1 10, 

_ t'. Donirlas. 190, 197, 293. 

— V. Ihiteher. 4i'-.'. 

— V. Kveriiart, 71. 

— V. Freneli, 2t'7. 

— V. Man. Ins. Co. 119. 

— V. rarlri<l'.;e, 3(".S. 

— !• Van KicUKlvke, 390. 

_ ,•. White. 94, 90. 21:., 325, 384. 
Clarkson r. Miteheli, .■>2. 
Clunter v. Burgees. 227. 
Clay V. Dcnni."*, 368. 

— V. Turner. 330. 
Clay horn v. Hill, 210. 
Clayton v. Hrown. 228. 

' _ f.. Burn.y, 4nO. 
Cleary v. (our, 44s. 
Cieavclanil r. Dixon, 447. 

t'. Ko^^ert", 0<«. 

Cleavinjr'T v. llciuiur, 103, 109, 
Clem r.New. <k Dan. U. U. Co. 90. 
Clemens v. Davis. 2'il. 
Clement v. Moore, 199. 

r. Smith, 3tK>. 

Clements v. Loj;-infl. 127. 

_ V. Uei.l. 358. 
dilherall v. (.>Kilvie, 357. 
I Coburn t-. I'lekerin;;, 211. 
Cochran r. Cummini;«, 93. 
Cocke V. HariUn. 335, 

... Me(;ini.i-«. 310. 

Cocks V. Iz;inl. 173. 224. 



TAlJI.i: OI' A.MDKICAN CASIIS CITKl). 



-.) 



roildin^jton v. I?ny, :U'.>. 

— V. (uiildard, 112. 

Cofffo V. \(«ws(iiii, 7:1. ;i;i.'>. 

Coftini; r. Tavlnr, ln'.t. 

CofTicill V. Half. A- N. llav. U. U. Co. 313 

('o:;liill r. 15()riii;r, ;i2.S. 

('olclii'slcr I'. Culver, 420. 

('"Icock )'. Ui'(>(l, 1(1.'). 

CdIo v. MrCJlalliry, :!10. 

Colt'iimii 1'. Hank nf Ifnniburi;, '111. 

— r. HarkU'w, 'JfS 

— V. Cwliv, I'.t?, 313. 

— v. Lvnc, :W3, 
CoIps ». Brown, -111. 
Collier v. Lanii-r, I in. 

— V. 'riioin|i.'<oii, 209. 
Collins V. Dcnnison, fid, a'jri. 

— V. McElrov, 213. 

— V. My.T.s, 211. 

— V. Smith, 101. 
Colquitt V. Thomas, 239. 
Colter V. Jloriraii, 'Jl. 
Coltrnius »•. ( au>.ey, 375, 
Combs V. Cooper, l:;3. 
Conniionweallh r. Ilodes, 204. 
Comstock »•. Ames, 2'.l8, 371. 

— t'. Comstock, 1 74. 

— ?■. Knyford, 211. 
Conant r. Jackson, 14 J, 385. 
Concord IJaidc c.Greiji,', 1 1 1,U2, 327, 32j). 
Coiikcj- V. IJond, 171. 

Coukling I'. Carson, 212. 
— )' Sliell>y, 213. 
Connersville v. Wiidleiijh, 79. 
Connor v. Henderson, 410. 
Conrad v. Atlantic Tiro In.s. Co. 211. 
Conroe v. Birdsail, 14;'. 
Conway v. Alexander, 194. 

— V. Ellison, 3t)0. 
Conycrs t*. Knnis, lu'.i. 

— V. Kcenans, 310. 

— V. 11'in.x, 150. 
Cook V. Cole, 144. 

— V. Collyer, 377. 

— I'. Oilman, 327. 

— V. Travis, 240. 

— V. ^Villianls, 3n8. 
Cooke V. Kelt, 228, 229. 

— V. Nathan, 399. 
Coolidge V. Brigham, 105. 
Coon V. Atwell, 329. 
Cooper V. Crosby, 397. 
Copeland v. Copdand, 128. 
Coppaijc V. ISarnctt, 228. 
Corbett v. Norcross, 129. 
Cork-bill V. Landers, 129, 138. 
Corprew v. Arthur, 228. 
Cosby V. Ros-s, 207. 
Cotton V. Hart, 237. 
Coiicli V. Sutton, 149. 
Coulson 1). Wulton, 306. 



ConltH fi. Crccnhorn, 203. 
Cowan f. ]{arr<tt, 109. 
CowlcH t'. Haco, 127. 
Cox V. Buck, 131. 

— f. Sullivan, 103, 104. 
Cralifrce v. (in-cn, 448. 
Craddock v. Cnbincss, 144. 
Cra;;<; v. Martin, 200. 
( rai;; ('. l.cipcr, 322. 

— »'. Waril, 32'>. 
Cram v. .Mitchell, 174. 
Cran(! v. Conklin, 44, 147. 

— V. Prather, 405. 
Cravens v. Booth, 149. 

— ?'. Grant, 32''>. 
Crawford v. lieetholf. 90, 321. 
Crawley v. Tiiiiberlakc, 299,368. 
Creath v. Sims, 374. 

Cres.sy v. Philips, 312. 
Cre.st t'. Jaek, 128, 134. 
Cries v. ^Vitllers, 417. 
Croat i: De Wolf, 127. 
Crocker «'. Lewis, 112. 
Crockett r. Lashbrock, 127. 

— V. M.ii,niire, 204. 
Crofts V. Arthur, 197, 202, 310. 
Cromwell v. Owinijs, 447. 

— »'. A\ inchester, 420. 
Cross V. Peters, I08. 
Crowder v. Lnnjjdon, 409. 
Crozier i'. Acer, 299. 
Cruise v. Chri.-topber, 147. 
Crump )•. l)udley, 219. 

— V. U. S. Mining Co., 114, 116. 
Crutchfield v. Ilaynes, 154. 
Cubbins i: Markwood, 186. 

Cullaiii )'. Branch Bank, 329. 

Culver V. Avery, 329. 

Cumberland Coal Co. v. Sherman, 155, 

ir.,S, 101, 174, 297, 298, 399. 
Cuniminf:js v. McCullough, 313, 346. 
Cunningham v, Fithian, 335. 

— V. Freeborn, 389. 

— f. Hull, 107. 

— V. Shields, 874. 

— V. Smith, 73. 
Curd V. Dodd, 149. 
Currens v. Hart, 240. 
Curric v. Cowles, 344. 

— 1'. Steele, 124. 
Curtis V. Hitchcock, 318. 
Cushing V. Wyman, 327. 

Custer V. Titusville Water «t Gas Co. 116. 

— Tompkins Co. Bank, 202. 

Dacey v. Daniel, 200. 
Dalton I'. Rust, 00. 
Hantortb t<. Adams, 132. 
— V. Wood, 210. 
Daniel v. .Mitchell, 73, 98, 407, 416. 
Danlev i'. Rector, 131. 



•jr. 



TAHLi: OF AMKKUAN CASKS CITKI). 



Parwin r. llntnlloy, -'i7. 
Daushty r. Snv«Kt'. 'Jl.*!. 
l»ovitl(«on r. (irtor. 421. 

— V. Moss. ni. it.'i, 103, 3:u. 
n.nvU r. ISnvlfV. 4<'-. 

— V. Hiiilcr. I'liU. UIM, 237. 

— r. IkiMlniul, r.34. 

— r. Cnlvirt, ISS. 
_ r. llaiuly. 1 '-'•.». 

— r. JniiH-s. 'J'.''.'. 

— r. M.NuUv. 140. 

— r. M.-ikir", 8tl. 

— r. Morsrnn. 184. 

— r. I'nviu', -Oft. 
_ »•. MiVlis. 4-Jl. 

— f. TlmiDiis. r27. 

— V. Tm-n<r, 'J 11 
Onvoo r. rnniiins. l'>^, 'CI. 
Day r. Sclt-y, 14'".. 
DeiuliTuk r."\Valkins, 187. 
Dean r. Ma.«<m. In:.. 
Doarmaii r. Diarnmn. 2O0. 220. 
Do Aniiand v. IMiillips. 2'.»'.>. 

l>o Cater r. Ltroy tie Cliamnont, 157. 

I>ecouche v. Swi'ticr, :'.i>S. 

IVop River (Jolil Miniii-j Co. v. Fox, 175. 

lieerbell v. VUhvr, 2o:i. 

Delaware r. Eii.sii;n, 21:5. 

Delcsdcrnier v. !Moary, 198. 

Dcming v. Foster. K't>. 

Deiitou f. M'Keiizie, 173, o8"J, '^^H. 

Dertloy v. Murpliy, 377. 

I)e llose V. Fay, li'>3. 

Dc^ell >: Ca-sey, 41V. 

Dcvereux v. lJiir;,'\vyn, 128. 

Dcviiiney v. Norris, IC'J. 

Dewev r. Field, 131. 

Dc Witt I'. .Moullon, 204. 

Doy V. Duiiliain, 2ti(>. 

Dick V. Cowper, 22."i. 

— V. GriH.-oni, 1"J'.'. 389. 
Dickens f. Jordan. loO. 
l>iekerM>n »•. Tiirnii!;li»-t. '^^^^ 
l>ickinftoii c IJradeii, 200. 

— V. Davis. 131. 

_ I'. (Jieiiiiey. 420. 
Diehl p. Vage, 215. 
Dill f. Camp. :5<>"- 

— V. Shalian, '•'''•H. 
Dillard r. Dillurd, 2n0. 

Diman r. I'rovideiice IC. I'. Co., 407. 
I>i-bn)\v V. JoiHM, 240, 2'J5». 
l»iMiiiikeH r. Terry, 141, 183,377. 
Dixlield r. Newton, 132.^ 
D'll.son »'. Hacey, 173, 174. 
jKKkrav ••• DfKjkray, 212. 
D<.<ld .'."M'Craw. 200. 
D'Ml^e r. (JriHWold, 40. 
DoiJHon ••. Cooke, 228. 
D.K- r. Kecd. 200. 
l"'t;t,'«:U». EnicfHon, V8 



Dolkray «'. Maxon, ll>7. 
DiinaKNon v. M'Koy, 225. 
DonelHon V. Ciiinent.-*, 54, 61. 
Donneil r. Kinp, 370. 
Dooley I'. JenningH, 9fi. 
Doolittle t'. Lyman, 231. 
Dorr V. yUin»'*W, 32S. 
Dorsey v. Dorfey, 158. 

— V. tlarkniaii, 105. 

— r. Smilli>on, 375. 
Doswell V. Iturlianan, 204. 
Doujjlierty t-. Doii^^liertv, 299. 

— f. .laek, 22S. 

— t'. M'Colgan. 194. 
Doni;las »•. Diiiilap, 231. 
Dow r. Ker, •Mi7. 
])ownes V. KissMin, 197. 
l)owney r. (iarrard, 109. 
l)owiiing !■. Major, 105. 
Doylo I'. Teas. 240. 

Drake r. Collins, 397. 

— r. (Mover, 149. 

— V. I.atliain, 85. 
Drew r, Clarke, 91. 
Driver v. Fortune, 184. 
Drury »'. Cros.s, 202. 
Diuiic'y V. Little, 224, 225. 
Diigau V. Giltin^s, 390. 

— V. Massev, 197. 

— r. VattiJr, 313, 318. 
Diinciin t'. Jeti-r, 3:;5. 
Duiiliani V. Dey, 200. 
Diinioh V. Uicliards, 176. 
Dunn J'. AniH^s, 147. 

— V. Cliaiiil)er.s, 189. 
Dunnoek v. Dunnock, 220. 
Dili hey r. Frena<;e. 204, 318. 
Dnpont f. AVetherinan, 321. 
Diipre r. Tliomi)Son, 40o. 
Duranl v. l!ac<.t, 428. 

— V. Duraut, !>'.i7. 
Durell V. Haley, los, 109. 
Duval r. Mowry, 328. 
Duvull r. SUillord, 310. 

Eajrle V. Burns, 130, 131. 
Kastiantl i: Yanarsdalc, 357. 
Fa-t Tennc-i-^ee U.K. Co. w. tiaminon, HI 
i:dilins V. Wilnon, 231. 
lvii;ini,'ton r. Williams, 199. 
Fdfek V. Crim, 105. 
JCdmonds v. (iooiiwin, 311. 
Kilwards t'. Morris, 234. 
_ f. Uoherts, 299. 
Kdzell V. Hart, 213. 
Fge V. Koontz, 402. 
K.-lel>erger v. Kibler, 208, 809. 
i;iOileiiiaii V. Lewi-*, 17:i. 
Fld.r V. Fldir. 418. 
Kldred f. lla/.Kll. 128. 
Klliolt V. Loalv, 83, 



TALJLK HF A.Mi;i;i('.\N TASKS CITKIJ. 



i:ili<jtt V. ihuu., r.o. 

— r. Iloiii. I'.i7. 227. 

— V. Swuitwoiif, -102. 
KIlis V. Hunlcii, «:.«. 

. — V. (iravis, Itt."). 
KliiiPndoif V. 'lavI'T, ;!0|, 308. 
KIwdl f. C')iaiiil)rilaiii, 111. 
Kly V. I'crririi'. -11 *J. 

— V. Scoficlil, •M'J. 

— t'. Wilcox. '_'IM. 
Emerson v. Idall, I'KS, 202. 
Kmer}' v. Owiiirjs, 2'.tl. 
Emmons i'. Mm ray, 215. 
EndtTH t-. William's, 228, 229. 
Kiulorr. Scott. 71. 
)')ii;jli.sh )'. Uciiwood, ',]^Ti. 
K)ilcy»'. Witlioi-DW. 12'.), 131, 235. 
Erwin r. I'arliain, l.'iti. 

Eslinni v. Lamar, I SI. 
Evans V. iiollin;;, SI, 334. 

— V. Ellis, ICl. 
Evart.s v. Strodo, 300. 
Euing V. IScaucliamp, 447. 

— V. C'aiitroU, 200. 

Eyre v. PotU-r, 14G, 18G, 3C6, 383. 

Fall v. Torrcnnce. 311. 
Fallon V. Hood, 78. 

— V. Kclioe, 2i?5. 
Farley v. Bryant, 400, 421. 
Farmers' Bank v. Doiii^las, 200. 

— of Va. r. Grovci5, 52. 

Farnam v. Brooks, 05, 144, 140, 174, 

180, 101, 308, 310, 311, 367, 380. 
Faruswortli v. Bell, 108. 

— V. Slie])herd, 210. 
Farrar ?'. Alston, 78, 04, 3'J5. 

— V. Bridges, 41. 

Fnrrell Foundry Co. r. Dart, 263. 
Farrow v. Teacklo, 107. 
Faust v. Smith, 240. 
Fnj' V. Oliver. 52. 
Fee V. Fee, 310. 
Feifcley v. Feiglej', 108. 
Fenimorc v. United States, 324. 
Fenno v. Say res, 316. 
Fergcrson v. Fcrgerson, 307. 
Ferris i: Coover, 133. 
Fersou v. Sanger. 300, 407. 
Field V. Arrowsinith, 157. 
Filton V. I'itneau, 204. 
Finley v. Lynch, 209. 

— V. Lynn, 419. 

Fireman's Insurance Co. v. rowcll, 420. 
Fish V. Clclaiid, 0(i. 
— V. Miller, 178. 
Fisher v. Boody. 360. 

— V. Probart, 83. 
Fisl>er's Ajipeal, 173. 
Fisk V. Tank, 107. 
Fitzgerald v. Foiristal, 375. 



Fil/gornld v. Peck, 398. 
FilziiMinoim v. Ogdcti, 31fl. 

— V. .Io^•lin, 112, 114. 

Filz|patrick v. I{ciilty, .'!i;0. 
Flujig fi. .Mann, Is-j," 'j;',.',, 215, ."00, ;il:'., 

318, 3K0, 300. 
Flagler v. Preiss, 388. 
Flake t'. Brown. 108. 
l''li'ming »'. TownHond, 234. 
I'Ictclicr V. ('onutionwj'alth Ins. Co., 110. 
Fli-yd V. (Jdodwin, 211. 
Foley ).'. Cowtjill, 82. 

— I'. Kni-ht, 211. 
Folk t'. P.inlclmar, 128. 

— V. Beidtlman, 132. 
Fooks r. Wajiles, 320. 

l*'oofnian «•. Pcndcrgrass, 228, 238. 
Ford )'. Harrington, ;;78. 

— V. Heron, 180. 

— V. Williams, 201, 213. 
Forey v. Clark, 300. 
Forkner v. Stuart, 211. 
Fo.ster V. Gersett, 335. 

— V. Gillman, 320. 

— r. McGregor, 2n0. 

— r. Walton, 228. 231. 
Foidk r. McFarlan.s, 108. 
Fowler v. Frisbie, 108. 

— V. Stoneum, 228, 231. 

— ?'. Waldrip, 234. 
Fox I'. Clark, 107. 
Frakes v. Brown. 198. 
Francliot )■. Leach, 328. 
Franklin Bank v. Coopei-, 123 
Franklin v. Elzell, 113. 

— V. Bidenonr, 144. 

— V. Waters, 310. 
Fratt V. Fiske, 200. 
I'razier v. Gervais, 07. 
Frceland v. l-^Idridge, 144. 
Freelove v. Cole, 377. 
Freeman v. Clute, I07. 

— V. Curtis, 300. 

— r. Durgins, 144. 

— V. Eatnian, 227. 

— V. Harwood, 154. 

— V. Lewis, 231. 

— V. Rauson, 213. 

— V. Staats, 332. 
French v. French, 147. 

— 7'. White, 328. 
Frew V. Daenman, 319. 
Frield v. Simcoe, 211. 
Frisbie v. Ballance, 357. 

— 1'. MeCarty, 228. 
Frost V. Beekmnn, 205, 370. 

— V. Kayniond. lo4. 

— r. Warren, 201, 213. 
FuUcnwider »•. Hoberts, 229, 281 
Fuller I'. Ho;:den, 04. 

— V. Perkins, 358. 



'JS 



TAr.LH Ol" AMIIUU'AN CASKS (lTi:i). 



FulUr r. Soars, 'JM. 

Kvilton Hank r. N. Y. Ac. l anul Ca. 'JtVi. 

FiirrlH •■. Dunhiun, .S74. 



Gnlmi* I'. Aero. 171. 
(;nillicr r tJnitli.r. JTS. 
(.;alntian r. I'unnin^lintii, :!71. 

_ V. Krwin. 177. 2:50. nr.:{. :i7tt, 
:;7i. 

r.nUirnitli r. EMor. 1G7. 

Gall- r. G'«l«'. ■«'-• 
_ ,.. Wells, ns. 
Gnlln;;hcrr. Wnriiij. 101 
Gnll.-u'o !•. GalK-^o. unrt. 
Gnlliun r. Mi('ii-rm. ".Ji. 
Gallowav r. Finliv. •H'». 
_ ' p. U<.lm.s, •»'.». 

— f. NVithcrspoou, 1 17. 
Gnlpin r. Abbott, -ir.!. 
(;nli r. Dibrtll. UiVI. 
CJaraiiKT liank v. Wlu-aton. 316, 390. 
(;ardiner r. Gardiner, 186. 
Gardner r. Booth. 2'IS. 

— V. Cole, :i-,;s, -j-io. 

r. Gardner. 4r.>. 

_ r. MeKweii, 213. 

_ r. (>j;den. 172, 3-lL 

Garsier r. Sinsdl. 301. 
(iarlaiid r. IJowlini:, 335. 

— r. Cliainbers. 211, 
Garner !•. Bird. 132.414. 

— t'. (iarner. 39H. 
_ r. L'orett. 335. 

Garrell t-. Grant, 2n3. 
(;urri.-*on <: \i'no<, 233. 
(iurrow r. Davis. y4. 325, 3S9. 
(Jarvin v. Lowcz. 3U0, 
Guss V. Moson. 140. 
Gates t'. Cole. 449. 
Gulling r. Newell. SS.*}. 

_ r. Hodman. 140. 
GazMin r. Toyntz. 3'.tt>. 
(Jelton r. Hawkins. 4iy. 
General Insuranee Co. v. U. S. Insurance 

Co., 203. 
G< (.r'_'e r. Uichardson. 100. 
( ,. tiv V. Ilountree. 107. 
(,,1- .11 V. Ixve, 211. 233. 
_ r. llun.lolpli. 3H3. 
(JiddinffHr. Kaslnian, 103, 313. 
(;itlord r. Carvill. 320. 
i;)li<in r. Livv, 1«"''. 
Gilbert r. Giib.rt. :J'.»7. 
(.ill-' f. Willianis. 30». 
dill V. Carter. 2'.»1. 

_ V. (iriUilli. 2t..'.. 
Gillett r. ni.l|.H. 7:1. 
f:illeH|.ie». M.H.n. 410, 41H,421. 
(.iiii.'.r.- •. ^^>r^'an. 4t).V 
«.i..,i r. • r' Wiley. 210. 
GluMr. BfOWif.345. 



GloMCoek r. Batton. 210. 

— r. Minor, 'i*^. 
Gins'*.!] r. Tiioinns. 330. 410. 
(Uidden r. Strii'pler. 14'.». I'oO. 
(;i"ver r. Suiitli, 344. 
(i olden r. Maupin, 330. 
i;ood r. Hawkins. DO, 225, 888. 

~ f. Ibrr, :i".»7. 
Good.- c. <;oode. 4 IS. 
Goodell r. Kiel.l, 4 IS. 

— V. Taylor. lUH. 
Goodworth r. ruiije. 197. 
(Jonlen- f. Downing;, 410. 
(iordon r. Tarnielee. 329. 

— r. Sizer. 211. 
(iott.schalk I'. I»c Santos, 131. 
Gould 1'. (iould, 174. 

— r. Woinaek, 3.'»7. 
Goust I'. Martin, 31S. 319. 
Gouvemeur v. Klniendorf, 384. 

— r. Titus. 421 ». 
(Jovernor v. Freeman. 131. 
(iralwun r. Davidson. 3t»3. 

— r. Torreancc, 304. 
Grannis v. Smith, I'JO, 390. 
Grant v. Cole, 2.'>9. 

— r. Lloyd, 224. 

— V. Sertziiiijer, 172. 
Grant land r. Wriijht. 00. 
(irapcngether c. Fejervury. 42(X 
Graves v. (iraves, '^41. 

— V. Mattin-li-v, 416. 

— r. Spi.r, 112. 

— 1: Wiiite, '.'3. 
Gray v. Hartiett, I'M. 

— V. Enunons 103. 

— V. Uuinph, 42i>. 

— V Tajipun, 1".*8. 
Great Falls Co. r, Worster, 246. 
Green v. Bateiuan, 410. 

— r. Drinker. 2is. 

— r. (ioodall, 217. 

— V. Morris, Ac. U.R, Co.. 899. 

— r. Tanner. 2o2. 212. 312. 813,88». 

— r. Thoiniison, 187, 189. 

— V. Winter, l.VI. 
(ireenwood r. Sprini;, 176. 
Greer v. Boone, 4 12. 

— r. Cahl well, 413. 
Greff'.; v. Siiyers, lis.'). 
(;reii,'^s 1: \\ (.odruir. 8.1. 
GriHiii v. Niteher. 40. 

— r. Sketio, 2'.i.-i. 
Gritlith v. Fre«ierick Co. Bunk, 147. 

— e. (iritlith, 241. 371. 
(irinifs V. lloyi, :i7s. 
(iriniT'tone r. (arter, 215. 
GriHwold 1: Haven, 1 12. 

— c. Mnith. 244. 
Groff.'. HariHel. 327 
(irundv 1'. JackHun, 344. 



TAIJLi: Ul>' A.MI.KICAN CASKS (111.1). 



li'J 



Culuk V. Wnrtl, 'J'JI. 
(Juitli I'. Wiiiii', ::i:7. 
(iiiiitcr I'. Tlioiiiiis, ;{'.»7. 
dutlirit' I', (iurdiirr, l'J7. 
(Juy «'. Knris, l'.»7. 
Gwymi V. Jiaiiiilton, ;<97. 

— V. Turner, liOl. 

liiukwitli V. Dawson, '211, SltV 
llml<l(ick V. Williams, lnH. 
Iliiili'ii V. (uudfii, 4\. 
JIatllcy i: Laliincr, 111. 
Ilud^itior V. Wiiliains, 201. 
Haines t'. Coalos, l.s8. 
llalU'i-t r. Crant, 4'>, iC, 108. 
linlcoine v. Uay, '201. 
llak'tt I'. Collins, 111, ICl, 305, 32'2. 
Hall V. Kdrinf^ton, 20('>. 

— V. Fisher, I'^'.K 

— V. Hail. 181-,, -lU. 

— V. II inks, ;ii:!. 

— V. Mayhew, 05. 

— V. Kay lor, l(i9. 

— V. Paisou.s, 210. 

— V. rerkin-s, I'JO. 

— V. Uoss, o57. 

— V. Sands, 207. 

— «•. Tirunions, 148. 

Ilnlls I'. Thompson, 73, 77, 78, 82, 84. 
Halsey tf. Whitney, 212. 
lluniiiton r. Bcal, 384. 

— V. Ganvard. 106. 

— V. Kussell. 210. 

— V. Smith. 310., 

— V. Thomas. 207. 
Hanford i'. Artcher, 211. 
llanly v. Morse, 244. 
llanna v. Spotts, 177, 179. 
Ilannay v. Eve, 371. 
Hanzen v. Power, 207. 
Hardeman v. Burge, 187, 188. 

— V. Conan, 335. 

Hardinge v. Handy. 14f), 345, 348, 366. 

— V. Kanilall, 55, 355, 413. 
Hardy v. Summers, 244. 
Harirraves ('. Kin;;. 172. 

Harlan v. Barnes, 20S. 
Harnian i\ Abbey, 213. 
Harper i'. Reno, 2(i4. 

— V. Scott, 234. 
Uarrelli). Hill, f.5. 

— V. Kelly, 300, 310. 
Harris t'. Alcock, luO. 

— V. Arnold, 245. 

— V. Carter, 237, 244. 

— V. Columbiana Co. Ins. Co., 420, 

— V. Dclaniar, 388. 

— V. Fly, 370. 

— r. Tyson, 97. 
Harrison v. Edwards, 130. 

— r. ilir-e,427. 



llarri.-^on i'. Talbot, d't. 
— V. Tcnn, '.UV.i, 
Hnrrisburt; liank i'. Fohlcr, 310 
llarrod v. Cowan. 4nK 
llarlman >: Hilh r, 2imi 
Hart V. Farniirs' itc. Bank, 259. 

— V. Stull, (15. 

— V. Tahna<li^f', ;'.25. 
Hartshorn v. Ciiltnll, 447. 
Harvey r. Smith, 78. 
llathorn v. il(.(l;,ri.s, 328. 
llattin r. Detinand, 447. 
Haulcy r. Mareius, 154. 
Haven v. Foster, 402. 

— V. Low, 211, 375. 

— )'. Uieliards'iii, 212. 
Havens r. Dale, 248. 

Hawley 1-. Cramer, 158, 169, 190, 303, 

304, 3<i5, 312. 
Hays »,'. Henry, 220. 
Haywood v. Harsh, :!09. 
llazanl t'. Irwin, 61, 328. 
Ilaz.Mi-d ?'. Irvin, 73. 
Head v. Muir, 447. 
Henderson r. ] lodd, 207. 

— V. Hays, 357. 

— V. Railroad Co., 61, 114, 115. 
Hendricks ?'. Robinson, 45, 197. 
Hennequin v. Naylor, ln9, llo. 
Henry v. Fullerton, 2()7. 

— V. Rainian, 168. 
Hcnshaw v. Atkins, 4tl. 

— V. Bryant, lo8, 331. 
Ileilbronr. Bissell,397. 
Hepburn v. McDowell, 134. 
Herniance v. Vernoy, 105. 
Herrick v. Blair, 292. 
Herrin v. Libbey, 328. 330. 
Herriiif^ i'. Winans, 37'<. 

Hester v. Memphis ilc. Railroad Co., 115. 

— V. Wilkinson, 2o7. 
Hewcs V. AViswall, 24.">. 
Hcvdock V. Stanhiipc, 212. 
Hiatt V. Wade, 228. 
Hicks V. Cram, 127. 
Hickman v. Quinn, 201. 
Hiiricinbotliam r. Barnett, 129. 
Hiu'^uins i: Maver, 215. 

lli-h V. Batte,"3*;9. 
Hiffhbcrger v. Stitfler, 144. 
Ikildreth r. Sands. 200. 
Hill V. Bush, 74, 408. 

— I'. Paul, 316. 

— V. McLaurin, 144. 
Hillnian >■. Wright, 421. 
llinihman v. Oinans. 397. 
Hinckley v. Hendrickson, 327. 
Hinde t'. Lonijworth, 206, 204 

— V. Vattier. 237. 
Hitchcock V. Covill, 108. 
Uite V. Hitc-. oil. 



30 



TAIILK IH' AM KICK AN CASKS CITKD. 



Ilobbii r. r.il'.., Jl 1. 

— V. Piirkrr, \'i«. 
HiKkoiibun: r'. t'nrlisle, 1<''7. 
H<><> I. SHtiltorn, I»'7. 

MdtTiiiaM M.ninlxmt ('•>. r. Cmiilurlaiul 

Colli Co., 1. '«.'>, ir.i. 
Uoffmnn Sloiun Coal Co. v. Cumbcrlniul 

Conl Co., 'J'.'T. 
Hoitt r. Holconib. 44. 79, 328, 3C8. 
llok.- .'. H.n.lcrson, 1»6. 
HolhriH.k I'. Hurt, :!S8. 
IIoM.n r. Crawfonl. 190. 
lloUiiiirsworth I'. LuptoD, 447. 
Holly r. Yoiini;, :{-J8. 
IKiliiies r. liitrker, 4^T. 

— r. Clurk. :5-J.V 

— V. Fro>li. I'.Hi. 

— V. Holmes, -I-IO. 

— f. Stout. -Jts, :316. 
Hood r. Falinc'?l«H'k, '2y.K 
Hoopcs V. Hunu'tt, ic:}. 
Hope I'. Kvnns, 3:50. 
Hopkins v. Stump, .158. 

— r. W.'bb. 'i'J'.t. . 
Ilopkirk r. Kamlolph. 206. 
HoplKT I'. Lisk, ;;2ii. 
iioppini: V. r.uriiuiu, 200. 
liorein r. LibbiV, XUK 
liornbeck r. Vaniiiefrc, 211. 
HotclikUs V. Fortsoii, 117. 
Hou^h I'. Hunt, 1S4. 

— f. Kiohardson, 75. 98, 114. 
HousntoirK- Uaiik c. Martin, 2r,2. 
Hovey i*. lilaticlianl. 'I'tS. 

How f. Waymaii. 2n'.t. 

— V. Way-man, 2:il. 
Howard v. Curp<ntor, 4:39. 

— r. Etlgill, !»•». 

- r. Hoi'V, 107. 
._ r. Wartiild.417. 

— r. Williams, 228. 
Howe V. iri-lio[i, 197. 

_ r. W ani, 198. 
Howfll r. Baker. 1«9. 

— r. Uaimoin, IftS, 
Howlond V. Seott, i:Jl. 
lloyt r. .SlieMon, \i'.'>H. 
Hubbard r. TuriitT, 201. 

— t'. .Martin, 4o2. 
Hucknbce r. Auller. 327. 
llii<i<-n f. Ware, li'.t'.t. 
Iluli.al r. Wil.Ur. 22R. 234. 
Hill I -on V. Warner, 20(5. 
Hutrv. Eurl, 15.'.. 
Hu'^hca r. Bloomer, .'Mrt. 

__ V. Kdwnrdi, 204. 

— V. Slonn, 75. 
_ r. r. S.. 244. 

Hnmbarl c Trinity (luircli, 30t, 310. 
Hun-lley r. W'.!.b,'21 1. 
Hunt V. BtM. i&7, l»i. 



Hunt f. Fnenutn. 419. 

— V. MrC(. 11. :i:il. 

— .'. Mo>.re, 55, li;t. 114. 

— r. Kousnumier. 397, 428. 

— r. White. 4IH. 

— r. Wieklifle. 30|. 
Hunter r. Foster, IJS. l-t'.i. I'.'iV 

— r. (Joudy, 4"''.'. 

— r. Hudson Kivi-r Iron Co. 

li:i. 
Iliintinpton i^ Hall, 105. 
Iiur>l «•. Hurst, 447. 
llu-on ii. ritman, 41'^. 420. 
Hu-ton 1'. (.'antril, 3o'.i. 
Hutchinson v. Brown, 147. 383. 

— V. Kelly, 19S. 207. 

— V. 'iiiwial. 147. 
Hyatt V. Boyle. litO. 
lly<le I'. Tanner, 425. 
llyni' 1'. Campbell, 417. 
Hvnsim r. Himn, :;•>«. 
Hy.slop V. Clark. I'.'T, 212. 

Ide t'. Orny, 91. 

He}' I'. Niswani^cr, 207. 

Inualls r. M..ri,'an, 258. 

liii,'.rson f. Starkweuthor, 173, 816 

lnu;raham v. Wheel r, 212. 

— r. Mor-an, 47. 103, 319. 

— V. rhiliiiH, 207, 206. 
Irick I'. Fulton, 410. 

Irish v. Morse, 21i>. 

lr\ in:: '•• Tliomas, 70. 300. 

Irwin I'. Shcriill, 324. 

Is.iac V. ( hirk, 101. 

Isham r. Bennington Iron Co., 264. 

Ivers V. Chandler. 131. 

Izard r. Izard. 2" 13. 

Jackson v. .\shton. 343. 

— .•. Henrv. 310. 
_ r. Hodu'es. 216. 

— V. lnal.il. 132. 

— V. Leek, 2f.O. 

— r. Myers. 198. 

— I'. Parker, 190. 

— V. I'liyne. 44S. 

V. Summerville. 318. 

— r. Town. 228. 
James r. Bird. 375. 

— t*. Drake, 235. 

— V. l.ani,'don, 144. 

— I', MeKernan. 172. 
Jaine'ion r. Clns-e'itk, 154. 
Jankin r. Simpson, 52. 
Jarvi» I'. DaviN. 210. 
Jasper v. Hamiltoi. i'O. I04 
Jcniison v. WoodrulT, 329. 

— t-. i:idrid;;e. 238. 
lenkinn r. Bodlev. 244. 370. 

_ e. Hoi;tj, 225. 



TABLi: or AMKKICAN CASKS ("lTi:ii. 



:ji 



Jrrikins V. I've. ISO, :io;{. 
JeiikH tt. Fritz, lo,'). 
.Icnuiiij^.s r. ( Jm/a", r>2. 

— V. Wi.ud, 'Jtll, '^(iS. 
Ji'wctt K. rainier, ;J18. 

— f. Ivtit, :>'*. 

— »'. Millir, 151. 
Jiilins V. Ri'iiriloii, 'Jf,!. 
•loliiKsoii I'. Itiiiiult. i:i7. 

— t'. |;<iylcs, :ii:). 

— 1'. ]{ruii(ii.s, 'J<»I. 

— t'. ('<>o|irr, ;;7s. 

— V. llriidlcy, 111. 

— f. .loliiisoii, 178, 303. 

— t'. Jones, :;;!.'>. 

— V. Nohli-, JU. 

— r. I'l-yor. im. 

— V. Til went I, nil. 
•Tolinston *'. ("<)|>i', lot'.. 

— V. (Maiiccy, 215. 

— V. (i\\i\\\mwy, 2il. 

— V. Ln Molte, 225. 
Jones V. Kollc;*, IIS 

— V. BninifonI, 258. 

— V. Comer, '.i'i'>. 

— V. Conoway, ^10. 

— V. fJrccn, tti. 

— V. Hail, 233. 

— V. Henry, 203. 

— V. Plater, 0(5. 

— V. Il.-ad, 318. 

— V. Sass.r. 12J). 

— f. WatiiiniJ, 402. 

— r. ZollieoHVr. 321. 
Joplin V. Dooley, 33t). 
.lopjiing V. Dorley, 334. 
Jonla v. Lewis, 211. 
Jordan v. Hyatt, 2112. 

— V. Stevc;i.s, 309. 

Joiizin V. Toulmin, 55, 95, 187, 189, 408. 

Joy V. Sears, 211. 

Joyce V. Taylor, Gl. 

Jud£:ei'. ^Vllkin3, 188. 

Junction K. K. Co. v. Harpold, 132. 

Kanndav. Xorth, 172. 

Kane v. Bloodgood, 304, 808. 

Kayscr v. Sicliel, 328. 

Kearney v. Taylor, 159, 173, 225. 

Keaton v. Cobbs, 154. 

Kcebler. Cummins, 144. 

Keelerv. Vantuyle. 131. 

Keen r. Coleman, 11 9. 

— V. Ilartman, 11 9. 
Keenan ;•. Mo., »te. Ins. Co., 260. 
Keislder v. Savaire Manuf. Co., 172. 
Keitcrea.se v. Levin, 318. 

Keller v. Nutz, 264. 
Kelly I'. McGuire, 144. 

— f. Pember, 326. 
Kelsey v. Ilolihy. 184. 
Ki'mjiner v. (.'luircliill, 200. 
Kendall v. Lawrence, 243. 



Kennedy v. .lolinHon, lo;i. 

— /'. KiMiiicdy. 42, 157. 3C7, »b8 
Keniiey i'. Udall, In). 

Kint t'. Carcaud, tWJ. 
Ki'iizon V. W'eltz, 397. 
Kepner r. iJuekliart, 196. 
Kerr v. Kitclifn, 211. 
Kershilbruek v. l/iviiiijston, 418. 
Ketelium i'. (ntliti, 4().'>. 

— v. Stoiit.f,!;. 

— V. Wnl.-on, 211. 
Kettlewell v. Slew.irt, 212. 
Keutfjen v. Purks. 328. 
Keyten v. iJranfonI, 419. 
Killouirli V. Steele, rj'.>. 
Kimball V. Cunnini^iiam, 62. 

— V. Huteliins, 231. 
Kimmel t'. Mesri^lit, 1"J7. 
Kiny r. Cohon, 141. 

— >: Dooliltle, 397. 

— r. Ka^He, 325. 

— V. Hamilton, 357. 

— V. Morford, 306. 

— V. Wilcox, 207. 
Kinij.sbury v. Taylor, 106. 
Kinney ?• Kiernan, 52, 327, 329. 
Kintzin' >'. ilcKlrutli, 97. 
Kirby r. Inj^ersoll, 41, 197. 

— " r. Taylor, 178. 

— ?'. Turner, 178. 
Kirtland v. Snow, 210. 
Kissam v. Edmoiidston, 200. 
Kite v. Lumpkin, 4o,s. 
Knabe «•. I'crnot, 172. 
Knobb V. Lindsay, 187, 363. 
Knolts i: (linger, 266. 
Knouff t'. Tiiompson, 134. 
Knowlton ;'. Niekles,291. 
Knox c, Tliomp>oii, 245. 
Krmckolls v. Lea. 299. 
Kuykendall v, McDonald, 21L 

Lackey v. Stouder, 105. 
Lacy I'. Wilson, 316. 
Laidlaw v. t^rj^an, 55, 97. 
Lamb v. Harris, 407. 
Lands ;•. Aidd, Io5. 
Lainkin v. lieese, 419. 
Lammott i'. Eowiy, 399. 
Lamont v. Stimson, 239. 
Lanca-ster v. Dolan, 228, 229, 231 
Land v. Jeffries, 196. 
Landis v. Brant, 244. 
Lane v. Borland, 210. 

— V. Kobinson, 109. 
Lang V. Lee, 213. 
Lan:;den v. Woodfield, 234. 
Lan-rford r. FIv. 19s. 
Lankton v. Scott, 292. 
Lansinij v. Woodwortii, 197 
Larkins »•. Bid.de, 41'.». 
Lassellc c. Barnett. IMl, 2:;7. 264 
L-.itter V. ilorriooa, 227, 23(». 



32 



TAiu-K ni' A.Mi:i:iiAN ( Asi:s tiTi;i). 



Ijjwrcnco r. I'onu\.i« n, 4oO. 

_ r. riuik. -JLV 

_ r. Uati.l. m. 

— I . Turktr. '2!>9. 
Ijiwnson «'. UiKT, lul. 
Law ton V. Low, -Irt. 
Liii V. Pckf Co. L'ojuuT Co.. '211 
Lcncli r. FowUt. U>>s. 
Loarv «•. Cox. HIT. 
l.onvilt r. riilmir. U'.'T, 1 U. 
Locutt f. Siillci', in."., 
l.cilpira r. IJiiiltT. 231. 
Lfc I'. Fox, 177, 178. 

— r. !,»■«•. 2SS. 

— f. I'atillo. -iHO. 

— r. I'orlor. l'M\ 

— r. Vniiirlinn, :<:>0. 
Loftwicli r. Oriii'. ImO. 
Lo-rnlt r. Sall.i'. If. 4. 170. 
Lt'^riT r. HoniilVe, tltJ. 
l>';;ro r. Lord. '2t>'.t. 
l.ciirh r. rniiiip, 357. 
I^-isinrins: f. lUaik, IfiO. 
lA'itcnsdorfcT »•. l»<-ll>liy, 418. 
Lonimon i'. IJrowr, :tI2. 
I>onnox V. Kotr»-l>\ IM. 
Lcoimrd r. Atislin. ll'.t. 

— r. I'itiif^, :ilO. 
Lcrow V. AViliuartli, ~0Q. 
ho Hoy t'. rialt. 420. 
LftchtT V. Norton, 210. 
Lewis t>. A. J., Iti.'i, 109. 

— V. Bairti, 2t;i. 

— V. lU-attv, ;;i9, 
_ V. IIoii>ton. ■MO. 

— ,.. Lov.'. 22;», 2:!1. 

— f. McLrinoii, (•>!. 86. 
V. t?aii An'oiii >, i;i2. 

Lexington r. Lin-lsay, o"8. 
I^yne v. Hank o) Ky., 206. 
Lies V. Stubb, 40\K 
Lislitfool r. ("olyin, 220. 
Lisjlitney v. Mooiiey, 204. 
Liu'on p. Uo'.;cr8, 420. 
LiTlard >■. MMlee, ViS. 
Lilv '■• Wolf. 2i'.4. 
Lincoln r. WriJit. 2:10. 
t udhav f. Liiulsav, 808. 

_ * V. Uankin. 310. 
Lines v. Darden, 4 :!'.». 
Linku B. Smith, 21 i. 
Lippincolt i'. Hark<T, 212. 

V. Stoki^*. 4:jy. 

Linliev f. Clavton, 2'»'.t. 
Liltlifield Hunk .•. I'e'.k, 115. 
Livermore v. Jolmfon, Ulo. 
Livingnton v. Littell, 211. 

i.. I'lTU Iron Co., 97 

Lloyd 9. HnwHtfT. lob. 

— r. Lvncli, ill'.i. 
I^.hdell f.'Hak.r, 111, 
I/xkbrUliTL- r. loMer W ni, 48, f.l. 
LockwooJ «• Nelion, 202. 



Locke I. Arinstronj. 008, 811. 

— r. '^trvens. ".Si. 
Long r. Mil kiiiL'I'otioiu, 105 

— r. I.oML'. :iT7. 
Longworlh r Hunt. a05). 
Looniis ('. \\ ainwright, 6%. 
Lord f. Col ley. 320. 

— V. (ioddiird, :!20. 
Lothrop i>. King, 215. 
Love r. L.'ik r.' 

— r. Mrnxton. 312. 

— i: Leu, 177. 

— I. Oidhani. 32«. 
Low I'. Triadwfll. 304. 
Lownde.s v. Clii»(»hn, 399. 
Lowry f. llrown, 2lo. 

— V. rin>on. 2ol. 
Luea.s i'. Mitchell. 374. 
l.iidlow I'. Coojii-r. 304. 
Luj-in r. .Marie. InS. 109. 
Lujitun I'. Cornell, 2ii0. 

— I'. Jaiuiey, 3o3. 
Liitz r. Sintlnenin, 292. 
Lukiii V. Aird. 190. 
Lvmau V. Little. 421. 

•_ ,.. U. S. In.s. Co., 42L 

— r. Itica Ins. Co., 410. 
Lvnch r. Tibbits, 50. 
Lvndc V. Mcliregor, 200, 

Lvne .'. Lank of Ky., 227, 228, 263 
Lyon I'. Uiclunond, 397. 

— t'. Sunders, 397. 

— f..Tullmadgc. 184,402. 

Maco r. Hover. 140. 
Mackie v. Cairns, 190, 197. 
Mackinley .■. MctJre-or, 109, 110. 
Macon f.Sliijuierd, 210. 
Maddox i: ^iniiiionH, 190. 
.Mngniac v. Thoinp^^on. 202, 398. 
Malione »'. Ueevis. 327. 
.Maine V. King. lo.'>. 
Mallorv t'. Lcacli. 320. 

— " r. Moddir. 310. 
Manc.-i V. Diirant. 217. 
.Man.v i: Killou-li. 210. 
MaidialtanC. r. Kvertson, 197, 198,370 
.Manicv r. Killongli, 211. 

MannV. lU'lt.rly, 144. 190. 
Manni V v. Later. 334. 

— " r. I'ortcr, S2. HM. 
.Mail/ V. Ueeknian Iron Co., 419. 
Marl.nry e. Hn.oks. 212. 

— ' »•. SloneHtreet, 05. 
March v. ^Veekerly. 131. 
Mark r Lawrence, 101. 
Markhani r. Todd, 3»i7. 
.Mar.-liall v. I'.illing-lra. 144. 

— r. It.iclianfin, '>25. 

— r. (iruV. 32'>. 

— I', .lov! 105, 173, 174. 

— V. Martin, 114. 

— r. Stephen H, 157. 



TAin.i: OF .V.MIIKICAN (ASMS (ITI.I). 



33 



— V. Maitiii. 111. 

f. I'ciiiiDck, 'Xi. 

— V. l!aiili-tt, 'J'JI. 

— V. Ifi.l.crts r.2. 

— V. \\ liarloii, 111). 
Miirviii V. ]5iiiii.l(. f.:., 116. 
Mustjii I'. Bilker, ;i7."i. 

— I', ('n.-l)y, 7i'.. 112. 

— r. Martin, l.">7. 

— r. I'aiiii', 'J.i I. 

— r. IJoiriTs, 'J(i7. 

— V. \ViUiaiiia, 144. 
Massie i'. (irci'iihow, 'ioS. 

— V. Watts, 172. 
Mosson V. IJdvet. rj2. 

Mas?. Turnpike Co. r. Field, 310. 
Ma.-^sy I'. Mellvain, 2;>l. 
— ' V. Moll wain, 21t>. 
Malta V. Henderson. :;:>5. 
Matter of Oaklev. l.')l. 

— l*(>st."it;4. 

Mattlieus V. Dczaud, 157. 
Matthews v. Bliss. '.l7. 

— V. Demerritt, 248. 

— V. Liirlit, 172. 

— V. Wari.e, rJ7. 
Mattincflv v. Nve, 200. 
Mattock v. Todd, 77. 
Maxwell v. Kennedy, ."11. 

— V. ret'.in.ar, 147. 
Mayer v. (.lark, 211. 
Mayfield v. Averitt, 210. 
Mayor ct (.'. C. v. Williams, 228. 
McMlerty v. I'onovcr, i:i2. 
Mc.\ninch i'. Laii^lilin, ;>'J7. 
McBride v. Wilkiution, 444. 
McCail I', llinkk-v. 212. 
McCartv v. Bee, 1.57. 
MeCauley v. Rhodes, 203. 
M'l'ianalian >: Henderson, 154. 
McClure v. A?-libv, 310. 

— V. Miller, lo."), 219. 
IirCIiire V. Purcell, 374. 
Jlct'obb I'. Richardson, 409. 
M'Conikc v. Sawyer, 385. 
McConipe v. Sawver, 207. 
McL'ormiek v. Malin, 144, 183, 187, 

2117, 389. 

— I'. McMurtrie, 133. 

— !■. Wheeler, 2r)9. 
M'Coun V. Delaney, C.">, 334. 
McCoy V. Arteher, 105. 
McCraw i'. Davis, 14i>. 
McCrea i'. Leonstretli, 05. 
McCulloch V. Scott, :;oo. 
MeDaniil v. Moorman, 144. 
McDonald v. Fitldan, 172. 

— v. Tralton, 73, 74. 
iFDonald V. Lin.luli, 131. 

— V. >eilson, 300, 391. 
McElderry r. shijiley, 414. 
McFerran v. Taylor, 01. 



.M'Ferran r. 'I'ayior, 4o.s. 
.Met; inn v. Sliaeiri-r, 157. 
.MefJnire r. ('allidinn, 52. 
Mehitosh r. Smit!i, 1 J9. 
.McKay v. SifnpHon, 41'.». 
M'KilVey (.. Tnil.y, i:i2. 
MeKclway v. Conk, 4o5. 
.McKinJey /'. Irvine, 155, 172. 
McKinney v. I'ort, Ktl. 

— r. Pinrkard. 190. 
McKnifjlitv. Keliett, 3'J8. 

— V. Taylor, 3o;i. 
McLau;jhlin r. Batik of Potomac, 208. 
.McLean v. Partoii, 303. 
.MeMeehen v. (Milliner, 240. 
.Me.Mill.n I'. .M.Millin, 419. 
Mc.Miirray ;•. St. I.fiuis Ac. Co., 391 
Me.Naiii^hton v. ParliidLje, 299, 420. 
M'Neely v. liueker, 229. 

McNeil V. Turner, 344. 

Mcpherson v. Walters, 129. 

McRimmers v. .Martin, 211. 

McVickar v. Woleolt, 417. 

MeWhorter v. Mc.Mahon, 357. 

Md. Fire Ins. Co. v. Dalryniple, 155, 161. 

Meanor v. Hamilton, 101. 

Mechanics' Bank of .\lexandria v. Seto.i, 

202. 
ISIcek ('. Perry, 177. 
Meeker v. York, 172. 
Meliick V. Kobertson, 397. 
Merchants' Kat'l Bank v. Nat'l Eaglo 
Bank, 4 1 5. 

— Bank r. Mclntyrc, 405. 
Merriwcatlier v. lierran, 97. 
Merr}' «'. Bostwick, 2o0. 
Michael v. Michael, 387. 

Michoud V. Girod, 156, 158, 298, 304, 

300. 308, 309, 347. 
Middleton, &c. Jiank v. Dubuque, 202. 
Miles i\ Barry, 310. 

— V. Stevens, 405, 416. 
Miller v. Bradford, 205. 

— V. Colton, 359. 

— )•. ConkliiiEj, 212. 

— V. Fraley, 258. 

— I'. Loi-kwood, 213. 

— V. Mclntyre, 304. 

— V. Pancoast, 211. 

— V. Piatt. 129. 

— V. Thomj)son, 207. 
Miller i-. ToUeson, 389. 
Mills ('. Camp, 210. 

— r. Frvin. 104, 105, 344. 

— >'. Mills 101. 

— )'. Warner, 210. 
Miner v. Grani^er, lo7. 

— V. lilcdbury. 79. 
Minturu v. Seymour, 420. 
Mi.>;sissippi Union Bank i-. WilkinsOD, 77 
Milchell V. Beal, 190, 197. 

— I'. Denson, 439, 441. 

— V. Minus, 111. 



;;i 



TAl'.l.i: or AMI.KICAN CASKS CllKD. 



.MiicluU r. M.'on-, l.M. 

— r. ri.'ki'lt. ant. 

— r. Tln>iii|>>()ti, ;!!<'. 

— r. Wonlrii. ins. 100. 

— V. ZiiniiKriimn, (U. 
Mix<r V. (Vtliiirn, lort. 
Moiili- ('. litK-hanni), 418. 
MihUImv*' (JnrtituT, In.^. 
M.-trit r. Winslow. 'J'.m. 
Muncrioff r. (Joliislxiroii;;!!, 225. 
Moiu'll r. (.\il(K'n, Si'.. 
Montvillo r. Jiiuiiihton, 120. 
MiKirc f. Autlitor. 2i>l. 

— r. Hliuivrlt, ISC. 

— V. Hrnckfii, 1 »'>!•. 

— V. Clay. 312, IJTO. 

— V. Ciri'i-n. IJi'i". 

— r. Uw»l. 2'.t'.t. 

— r. Maiulell)iuim. 172. 173, 17J. 

— r. Moori', 171. 

— V. Tiirhfvillo. 7S. 
Mnnlocai v. Taiikersh'y, 328. 
Mi.re I'. Siin'illiiirj;, 335. 
Monhend r. Hunt, 225. 
Moroland r. AUhinson, 335, 399. 

_ r. Li-mMctnr, 234, 244. 
Morcy V. For.-iytli. I'.'S. 
Morgan v. l>li.->, '•'!, •125. 

— r, Morgan. 214. 

— V. Ittj.ul'lic, 211. 

— V. Siiapi', 74, 

— r. Spangl.T. 128, 398. 
Morlanil r. lili.^s 131- 

Murris Canal Co. v. Emmett, 73. 

— r. Muoro, 128. 

— V. I'hiliber, 188. 

— V. Uoss, 448. 

_ tf. Temll, 241. ' 
Morrifwjn v. McLoihI, 147. 
MorliiniT r. I'rilcliaril, 399. 
Moiton V. ll();jilon. 128. 

— f. Uobanls, 2ti(;. 

— f. Seull, 112. :i25. 
.Mo.Hby V. Wall. 4 IS, 421. 
.Moucley r. ISuck, 173, 345. 

_ V. .Mostlt-y, 231. 
.Mos« V. l)aviii.son. 384. 

— V. Ki.l.ih', 30S. 
.Motley r. .Moik-y. 178. 
Motl i;. llarriii;jt<'n. •<*<• 
Moultrie f. Jtnniii;:^, 228. 
.Mulford V. .MiniU, If.l. 
.Mullen I'. WilM>n, 207. 
Munclorf r. Wickfr^linm, IIU 
.MuuMon ••. Hnllowcll, ;Uo. 

— r. (JuinhuT, 325. 
iiurray v. Hollou. 'J«>4, 370. 

— V. \i\zK'*. -12. 

— r. Vandi-rbilt, 150. 
My«r9 r. M V'T!*. 1 54. 

— r. I'crk, 31rt. 

— 9. Kivcft. 17K. 
Mycr** Apiwal. 172. 



Nnliours v. Cork«*, 404. 
Nnnoo r. 'riionij'Hoii, 447. 
Xniit/. I'. Mt rii.THon. :i7<>. 
Napi.r v. Khun. lo;{, ;;22. 388. 
Nartis.-a v. Wutlian, 78, 158. 
National Fire ln«. Co. r. Crane, 420. 

— Hank r. Norton, 202. 
Neal V. Williaturt. 313. 
Nenle v. llayllirojt, 241. 
Nerlv v. Anderson. 190. 
Nelli's e. (lark. ::74. 

Nei.-ion r. Carrington, 299, 306. 
Ncsbit f. I.ocktnan. 170. 

— r. Di-rby, 212. 
Novin I'. Helknaj), 128. 
Nevius ••. Dunlnp, 410. 
Newcomer v. Kline, 419, 420, 
Newman r. Clia|iman, 200. 

— r. Kdwanls. 132. 

— r. M.'ek. 187, 188. 225. 

New Orleans U. K. Co. »•. Williams, 115. 
Nichols t'. Mielinels, 328. 

— V. Tinner, lo8. 

— V. Kevnolds, 204. 
Niles «•. Ande"rson,44, 355, 868. 
Niolen v. lJouula«.s, 212. 
Noble V. (Joo;;in.q, 05. 
Noonaii »'. Lee, 334. 

North Halt. Huilding Association f. Cald- 

well, 158. 
North r. Hcldcn, 201. 
Northrop i'. Graves, 402. 
Norton v. llootcn, 105. 

— J'. Young, 327. 
Nowlan v. Cain, 78. 
Nult >•. Nutt, 448. 

N.Y.Howery ln.s. Co. v. N. Y. Ins. Co.,l 19. 

Obort V. Obert, 300. 

O'Hrien v. Coulter, 40, 199. 

Oelder v. Walker, 311. 

Odlin «'. Cove. 133. 

Ohio Life Ins. Co. r. Lcdvnrd, 206. 

Oliver i-. I'iatt. 155, 238,'241. 308. 

Ornisby r. Hakenell, 447. 

O.-^born I'. Carr, 323. 

Osborne v. Moss, 375. 

— r. rhelps, 418. 
Osgood V. Franklin, 187. 

— f. Lewis, 106. 
Oswold r. MetJehee, 01. 
Overton r. I'helan, 107. 
Owing's Case, 144, 140, 341, 887. 
Owings I'. J nit, 312. 

I'adget »•. Lawrence, 319. 
I'ago t'. Henf, 50. 
_ V. Booth, 304. 

— V. Ford, 107. 
I'aigi' V. Naglee. 154. 
Fainter i'. llemlerson, 164. 
Palmer v. Crosn, 149. 
Parhani v. I'arham. 418. 

— V. Kanduli)h, bl. 



1 AIlLi; OI' A.MEIilCAN CASKS CITi:!). 



3,J 



• 'iiriOi I'. Mii:|iliirf, 'Jnti. 
riirktr V. lUAuiv. '.'• Itl. 
I'jirkliuiii t'. McCriiiT, 151 1. 
— V. Kiin(l"il|)li. 'M!S. 
P'irkluirHt V. Alexander, 172. 
I^irkiiison r. llannii, 'Jn]. 
rarkiimn v. A\'el(li, "Jo?. 
I'arks V. Willai<l. '_'•'.(>. 
I'arrett v. Slimihliiit, 'Ji'i4. 
I 'arson v. lliiu;lies, '.",tS. 
Purtels r. llniris, -'02, 
I'atlfii V. (;«rney, It-I. 

— r. llolli.layslture:, 214. 

— t'. Moore, '-J IS. 
I'nttoii I'. Taylor, ;;:i J. 

— t'. MrClare, ]■■}.■}. 
I'ayne v. Hodden, 105. 

— V. Sinith. «'J. 
Peabody v. Fenlon, 320. 
Peacock i'. lUack, :',0i. 
Pea'rcc v. Plaekwell, 102. 

— r. Cliastiiin, IIPl. 
Pcarrelt v. Sliawbliut, !•'). 
Pcnrsoll J'. Cliaiiin, 10, 297, 327 
Pearson v. ]>aiiiel, '2;i7. 

Pense v. Saliin, ln7. 
Peay r. Sublet, 107. 
Peck V. BaUhvin, r>0. 

— V. iJrewer, :}30. 

— V. Land, 200. 
Pcdeiis V. Owens, CG. 
peers V. Dnvi.*, :'.2.'). 
Penibertun i'. Staples, .368. 
Pe:ideru:ast V. Ue.d, 88. 

I endlcton v. Galloway, 309, 366 
i'tqiieno r. Taylor. 109, 328. 
Pt rsniis r. Jones, 310. 
reni;-iie v. Wood, 44. 
Perins V. Dunn, 200. 
IVrUins v. C'artmell, 304. 

— 1'. .McGavock, 96, 97 

— V. Rico, 77, 8."). 

— f. Webster, 66. 
Perkins r. AVrii;lit, 357. 
Perry v. Crary, 311. 
Petere v. Fo-slcr, 127. 
Peters I'. Kloreneo, o'.>7. 

— V. Coodrieh, 236, 264. 

— V. Newkirk, 2',t2. 
Peterson c. (M-over, 419. 
Petric V. Wrifi^ht, 384. 
Potters I'. Sniitli, 201, 209. 
Pettes Hank r. Whitehall, 307 
Pettibono v. Stevens, 200, 383. 
Pettigrew v. Chellis, 325. 
Petty I'. Petty, 220. 

Peyton i-. Butler, 84, 347. 

— V. Stith, 304. 
Phalcn V. Clark, 43, 310, 374. 
i'iielan I'. Crosby, 327. 
Phillilis V. Moore, 1-17. 
I'hel|isi I'. C»verton, 165. 
Piiettiiiiace V. Saylcs, 96, 210, 216, 



!SJ. 



Phipjun I'. Sfickify, 225. 
Pialt I', ViiMi.r. 30;:. 
I'bnrd I'. .MeCorniiek, 78. 
Piekj'tt t'. Barron, 310. 
Pierce v. I'aiinei', lUO. 

— r. .laekHoii, 2P2. 

— r. Nesbitt, IT).'). 

— V. Perkins. 201. • 

— .•. Wilson. :;20. 
T'ierpont »•. (irahain, 212. 
Pike i: Wietinir, loO. 
Pillow I'. Shannon, 318. 
Pillsi)ury v. Pillsbtiry, 172. 
I'inkhani v. (Jear, 102. 
Pinneo V. Iliixi^ins. 21.'>. 
Pinsoii )'. Ivey, 3oK, ;;2l. 
Pintard v. Martin, 3o7, 33.'5, 336. 
Pitney V. Leonard, 23(>, 238. 
Pitts V. Cottinpjhnin, 81, 86. 
I'ixley V. Bennett, 108. 

Place )'. Lanijworth, 213. 
Planters' P^ank i'. Henderson, 209. 

— and Merchants' Bank v. WiHis, 

210. 
Plaster r. Bur<,rer, 22.".. 
Piatt V. Oliver, 224. 
Pleasants v. Boss, 447. 
Plitt ex-pnrte, 1(14. 
Pontjue V. Bovcc, 4.".. 200, 209. 
Poillon I'. Martin, 171, 321. 
Pollard V. Paiijers, 103, 209, 300, 333. 
Pollock V. Wilson, 6."). 
I'oor )'. Price, 44, 5ip. 
Poore V. WoodbuPD, 329. 
Pope V. Andrews, 106, 385. 
Porter v. liank of Rutland, 262. 

— V. Sevey, 266. 
Portland P>ank v. Stacey, 211. 
Polts i: Black well, 231." 
Poulet V. Johnson, 240. 
Powell V. Bradlee, 108, SSL 

— V. Clark, 66. 

— V. Jcfferies, 319. 
Pratt V. Carroll, 357. 

— V. Philbrook, 96. 
Prentice >'. Achorn, 147. 
Prentiss v. Russ, 04. 
Preston r. Crofut, 313. 

— V. Mann, 128, 133. 
Prevo V. Walters, 312. 
Prevost t'. Gratz, 304. 
Prewitt V. Copwood, 377. 

— ?'. Graves, 336. 

Price V. Grand Rapids ct Ind. R. R. Co., 
163. 
— V. Sykes, 108. 
Prie-^ I-. Evans, l.'iO. 
Pringle v. Phili]>s, 237. 

— V. Samuel, 66, 82, 88. 
Prior I'. Kinney, 106. 
Proctor V. Tl.rall, 307. 
Prout v. Robert.^ lo:?, 335. 
Putnam >■. I'utch. 211, 



3G 



TAULi: or .\Mi:i:i(AN (Asr.s crn:!). 



l^>iiarlcii ». Liircy. 1">7. 

IJiiick f. t>luyvc»j.nt, :t:>S. 

nti.l.liffp r. Wi-littimn. 417. 
liilroiul To. V. Kowo. •2".i".». 
i;:iiii>f..r«l r. ItniiisfonI, 297. 
IJn liijiy f. J'>yrc, 217. 
lintiHd'ill r. Kiliriirton. 215. 
Kniulr. Ko(lini:ton, 291. 
Itniuliill r. lli>\v.irci, HTl. 

— f. I'liiilips. 19S. 
Randolph v. lh>s->. 1'.<S. 

— r. Wiuc. :;i>J. 
Rankin r. Unllownv, 211. 

— f. L<hUt. 212. 
Rn|>a1io >: Jloieworthy, 178. 
Ratcliffe r. Sanirst.m.'jUy. 
Rmiirlcv »•. sprimr. i:!l. 
lluwiloii V. Hliitchf.nl. ;•«. 
llawU-y V. \\ ixninitr, Vl. 
Raymoml v. ^-iinonson, 310. 
Rend r. Cramer, •'■"i, 413. 

— i: slatiT, :n:{. 

— V. Wnriier, 172. 
Kciidiiig f. Trie •, 1<>I. 
lU-ardon I'. Seavy, :U»C. 
Reed r. Ilarbcr. 105. 

— t-. C-..].-. 2I-.1. 

— r. .li'W.tt. 211. 

— V. Noxoii, 2' i», 385. 
Reed's Appeal, 2."..s. 
Reese v. Wymnn, 03, 421. 
Reidr. Stanley, 107. 
Reinick v. Smith. 3'.U. 
lUiniiker v. Sniilli, 147, S.')! 
lUsiTVoir Co. r. Cliiise, 3'J'J. 
Re3nolds «•. Vance, 22". 

— V. Vilas, 220. 
Rice r. riiirlinm, \UTt. 

— V. McDonald, 239. 

— f. RawlinfTS, 3r)7. 

— V. \Vliitr, :!lo. 
Richards v. Fridley WriLjlit, fiO 

_ r. llutit. 210. 
RichardBou v. Admns. 27.'>. 

— V. r.liu'l't. 421. 

— I'. .lolinson, l(t6. 

— p. Liiincy, 17S. 

— r. Spencer, l.'»7. 
Richmond »•. Cur<liip. 11*0. 
Ricki-r f. Ham, 227, 231. 
Rid^jway r. Indt-rwood, 230 
Ricmcr r. Cant ill' >n, 4 It*. 
Ripdon r. Martin, 2'.»2. 
ItinjjKold V. Rintrt:"hl, 158. 
]lin(;o i: Rinn«, 17rt. 
Jt)n;fr"w •'• ^Vard^•^, 132. 
lUjipy r. Crant, H«. 
River r I'lankroad Co., 116. 
R<.U)in« r. r.ml.r, i:.5. 
lUiUrUi r. Anderuon, '/tJO, 313. 

— V. .Stanton, 240. 



iColiiiison ••. liaii-', I'.'s. 

— V. .1 notice. 127, laa. 

— I'. KiveH, 103. 
Rodper« v. Ndes. In7. 
Rodman v. Cilley, 1 17. 
Roe I'. Jerome. 127. 
Ropers v. Atkinson. 41V. 

— f. .IniieH. 211. 2 IS, 2r,a. 

— r. SautiilrrH, 3t»7. 
Roosevelt r. I'uiton, til. 
Root V. KreiK-li. li'M. 

— V. Reynolds, 200t 
Rose r. Mead. 224. 

— r. Mynatt. lt»r>. 
Roes t'. Ilonston, 2.'>8. 

— t». Vestncr, 3t)8. 
Roth I'. Palmt-r, :i2«. 
Rowan r. Adams, 240. 
Rowley f. lii-rclow, 108, 109. 

Uildd r. Joins, 4 17. , 

Kuddi.k V. l.e-jTiratt, 310. 
Knirner v. Met onneil, 410. 421. 
Riimph I'. Al't-rcrombic, 333. 
Russell V. Hranhnm. '.•o. 

— c. Clarke, 4.'i. 325. 

— V. Kearney. 22S. 

— V. Siinson, \W, 207. 

— »'. \Vint's, 213. 
Rutherford c. Uidf, 144. 
Rutland r. Taiu"'. 120. 
Rutledpe V. smith, 420. 
Rutter f. Rarr, 211. 

'_ V. Rlake. 327. 
Ryan v. Blunt. 4 17. 

Saddler v. Robinson, 299. 
Sanders i'. I'tpoor, 211. 
Sandford e Handy, K8. 
Sands I'. Codwis", 34.^. 
Sands i« llildreth, IVS, 202. 
Sanger v. Craiper, 204. 

_ •■. Ka.stwoud, 228, 231. 
S.nlein Inilia llubber to. «•. Adam*, 101. 
Snllee e. Chandler, 1.57. 
Salmon i: l5enn.-lt, 200, 228. 
Saltonstall v. tJordon, 124. 
Sanborn «•. Osi^ood, 327. 

r. Stetson, 384. 

_ f. Wood, 299. 
Saunders v. Ten ill, 203. 

— V. llattrnnnn, 78, 
_ r. Turbeville, 218. 

Savaire f. Rerrv. 419. 

— V. Murphy, 2o7, 208. 
Sawyer e. Crane, 205. 
Sched<la r. Sawyer, 172. 
Schermerhorn v. (ieorgc, 77. 
Schultz r. Moon-. 201. 
Sehutt V. I.arjre. 204. 
Schwartz i: W euddl, ir.8. 
Bcoll V. iWimer, 94. 

_ I-. DuiMvip. 4n. 
V. Krcehiml. 177 



TAULi: OF AMEIIICAN ("ASKS CITr.I). 



37 



Scolt i» Calliiu-lii-r, lilO. 

— I'. Ilix, in.'i. 

— f. rcrrin, :i:i7. 

— r. IJcnc'k, 10(5. 

— r. WiiiiHT, 415. 
Scranfon v. (lark, 1(I5. 
Scijiir r. I'Mwiirdn, 174. 
S(.'i,Mir i: l''iiii,'li'y, 408. 
Si'ltlcii I'. M\<'rs, ;!87. 
Sdi^maii v. Ivalkmuii, 108. 
Si'viiii; I', (inli', '21(5. 
Sewall I'. (Hi. Moil. 233. 

— V. Hussfll, 1<.I7. 
Spwaril V. .lackson, '2ii8. 
Sp.\ton V. Wlu'afou, 14!). 206. 
Seymour v. Dclancy, 3(i3. 

' — V. Freir, ;;n8. 
Sliftcki'lford I'. Ilatuilev. 61, 300. 

— f. Handy," 320, 327 337. 

Slmv-'frtjr t'. Sli-adc, 55. 
Sliald- J'. Davis, 397. 
Slianiioii V. Wliito, 31 1. 

— r. Marinadiikc, 174. 
Sliarinaii i; .Mill^T, 4 21. 
Sliarj) V. New York, 325. 
Shaw V. IJainluirt, 32'.t. 

— V. Levy, 228, 231, 234. 

— 1'. Stine, 74. 
Phcarin t'. Futon, 304. 
Sherkell v. liopkin-, 104. 
Sliepjjerd j'. Ik-vis, 3t'.:{. 
Shejipard v. Turpin, 213. 

Sliermnn v. ('lianii>lain Trans. Co., 105. 
Siterry t'. Stansbury, 178. 
Sherwood v. Sutton, 31(X 
Shields v. Anderson. 210. 

— r. Hoijiiolo, 345. 
Shinnis v. Coil, 202. 
Siiipp ('. Swan, ^.^'H). 
Siiirras v. CraiL', 201, 2G5. 
Sliort V. Stevenson, 182. 
Sholwell V. Murray, 3'.)7. 
Simeon v. Wilson, 140. 
SinuTson v. Mank of Decatur, 211. 
Simmons v. North, 410, 420. 

— V. Vulean Oil Co., 182. 
Simpson i'. Dalj, 100. 

— V. Craves, 202. 203. 

— V. Mitehell, 207. 
Sima J'. Steele. 374. 
Skeel i\ Si>raker, 240. 
Skiliman v. Teeple. 400. 
SkiniuTt'. Sirouse, 131. 
Skinninn; |. Ncufville, 132. 
Skipwitli I'. Cuiiiiin^li.'iin, 212. 
Skirvini? f. Neutville, 131. 
•^kriiie v. Simmons, 307. 
Slaek V. yiai.:\'j::\n. 358. 
Slade V. Van Veehten, 154. 
State iv .MeCowen, 3n8. 
Slater i: Maxwell, 187, 224. 
Sloo I'. Law, 150. 
blothower v. Gordon, 65. 



Smith r. Ali.ii. 4 IK, 

— V. l'.aiM-o<k, 7t'., 307. 

— V. I!i>li<ip, 31(». 

— r. lleatty, 07, 146. 

— V. iJrotirc-rline, 108. 

— 1'. Ciiek. 04. 

— r. Dull, 24»1. 

— V. i:ili..tt. 377. 

— V. iivaiiH, 00. 

— »'. Fly, 05, 311. 

— V. (Jreenlec, 225. 

— V. (Jreer, 2<)3. 

— V. Hall, 20(5. 

— V. I.aiisin^j, 173,344. 

— »•. ]VI.D(,iif,'al, 307. 

— t'. .Mciver, 4 1. 

— r. .Mitehell, 01, 03, 326. 

— i: Oliver, 258. 

— V. Onion, 2iil. 

— 1'. Owens, 215. 

— ?'. I'riuee, 204. 

— V. Uirhanls, 01. 73, 79, 102. 

— V. Kuhcrt.soii, 417. 

— V. Siiaiie, 240, 24.5. 

— r. Smitii, 110, 100, 220, 327, 448. 

— V. Stone, 215. 

— ?'. Tall.ot, 311. 

— V. Tiiomjison, 105, IGO, 806. 

— V. Yule, 240. 
Smolson <fc Co. v. Franklin, 95. 
Sinull t'. Jone-s, 225. 
Sneli^rove i-. Snel^'rove, 132, 369. 
Siielsun & Co. v. Franklin, 103. 
Snyder v. Warhasse, 440. 
Somervillc v. Ilorton, 207. 
Sonthall V. Clark, 178. 
Spaldini^ v. Fisher, 197.. 

— V. Hedges, 79. 

— V. Vandercrook, 327. 
Sparks v. White, 400. 
Speise v. McCoj*, 228. 
Spence v. Buren, 306. 

— V. Whitaker, 78, 161. 
Spencer t). Speneer, 301. 
Spindler ?'. Atkinson, 154. 
Splaun )'. Martin, 2o2. 
Spollord r. Weston, 206. 
Sponabler i'. Snyder, 258. 
Spraj^ue v. Duel, 140. 
Springes V. Harven, 420. 
Stadtler i: Wood. 210. 
Statlbrd V. Ballou, 236. 
Staines v. Shores, 225, 325. 
Stamps r. IJraev, 387. 

St. Andrew's Church v. Tomkins, 32a 
Stanton v. Green, 375. 
Stark V. Littlcpaije, 375. 
Starr v. I>ennett. 90. 

— I'. Yandersheyden, 164. 
Slate V. Paup, 397. 

— V. Keed, 205. 

— V. Keigart, «07. 
Stebbins «•. Lddv, 00, S3, 367. 



.■k> 



taiuj: or amuuk'an cases citj:i>. 



StoilwoU r. Andorson, 4lt>. 
rStcclc r. Kllninkor. 'J'Jrt. 

— r. Kii.kl.', It:.. H);i. aofl. 

_ V. W <.rll.iiis;ton. 166, 188, 374. 
Steers V. II-'jicIjiikI. 380. 
Stop V. Alkirr. :.:;ri. 
Slorii.t r. I ni:t', •'''''". 
Stcrry f. Anion, T29. 
Movcns r. llv«l«-. t,'2. 328. 

— r. M"..rse, 'i:i\. 

— V. Smith. Ktfi. 
Sitwnrt r. llo::tr^. 'Jt'O. 

_ r. Stownrt, 1S4. 220. 
Mickncv i'- Hosniim. !57''>. 
SliUs i" Uliito, 3'.;:), S81. 
Stockton r. Ford, l()li. 
SlwKlurd r. Hart. 414. 
St»>ne r. Denny, •'».%, 326. 

— V. (lOVcr, 3'Jl'. 

— V. lliunsuv. 335. 
Stoolfuos «v Jenkins, 148. 
St<irer r. H:irrin;;fon, 201. 
Storrs r. liurkcr, 131. 132, 307. 
Movnll r. Kortheru IJank of Mississipi>i 

368. 
Sioverr. Fnrnior.'A- Merc1innl6Cttuk,21 1 

— V. llcrrington, 2U2. 
Strang r. Heacb, 419. 
Street i: Dow, 299. 
Siribling v. Uoss, 197. 
Strong V. Harnes. 105. 

— I'. Ellsworth, 132. 

— r. IVters, 78. 
Stuart V. Luddinpton, 127. 
Stiibbleti. Id f. Patterson, 187. 
Stuyvesant r. Hall, 264. 
SuniUKTS I'. IJebb, 197. 

— V. Uoos. 213. 
Sumner v Khodes, 264. 
Surmbcrger »•. ^Vebs•er, 246. 
Sutphen i'. Fowler, 391. 
Swain r. I'erine, 220. 

— f. Seainens, 129. 
Swavze V. IJurk, 161. 
Switzer v. Skiles, 225. 

Talbot »•. Subrcc, 345. 
Tarbell v. Howman, 05. 
Tote V. Connor, 308. 

— r. Tale, 207, 220, 229, 230, 810. 

— r. Ix-t'U'alt. 227. 228. 

— r. WliitiK-y. 181. 
Toylor v. H nhain. 3o8. 

— t..n:iv. 12«. 

— r. Fleet. 73. 385. 
r. Fro^t, 325. 

— r. Ileriot, 266. 

— r. Kn-.x. 173. 
_ f. MillH, 211. 

— r. NuhoUon. 447. 

— ». Snnd.H. lo7. 

— r. Tftvlor. 180. 

— r. Zipp. 128. 



Tnvmon v. Mitchell. 300. 333. 
Trickle r. llail.y. 173, 3S4. 
Te«.vdal<> I'. Atkinson. 231, 233. 
Ten Eiek e. Simpson. 131. 
Terry r. Iteleht r, 211. 

— I'. I.nek, ln2. 104. 
Thayer i-. Thay.r, 220. 

— !•. Turner. 327. 
The Diflilletl Spirit.i. 259. 
Thonmfl r. (Joodwin. 2ot). 

— r. (;riin<l (iulf liank, 264. 

— r. MeCormick, 418. 

— V. I'erry, t-5. 

— t. Sheppenl. lit. 
Thompson Scale .Manuf.Co.i'.().-good,410 
Thompson i'. lUaiuliard. '111. 

— I'. Da> i.s. 22."). 

— f. Donijlierty. 207. 

— f. .laek.-on, 366, 416. 

— V. Lee, 194. 

— V. Sanborn, 131. 

— V. Sunders, 389. 

— f. Sod. 3.'.8. 

— V. Tliompson. 198. 
Tliornton r. Davenport. 201. 
Thorp V. MeCulluin, l.'iT. 
Thur.-ton i-. lilanehnrd. 328. 
Tibb.s V. Timberlnke, 300. 
Tiekner v. Wishall. 197. 
Ticknor v. AVi.';nall, 213. 

Ti!t V. ^Valker. 2ol. 
Til;,'bman r. West. 132. 
Tilton ('. Huiiter. 2Ci4. 

— 1'. Nrlson, i;!2. 

— r. Tilton. 419. 420. 
Todd I'. Heliidiet. 2iVt. 

— t'. Grove, I'.Mi. 
Tomlin v. Den. IM. 
Tomlinson v. Savajje, 335. 
Tompkins r. IVriell. 316. 

— v. Wh.'.ler, 212. 
Tongue r. Nulwell. T-'S. 131, 132. 
Torrance v. Lutiisdi'n. 417. 

Torrey r. Hankof New Orlean-<, 173, 174. 

Tonle'r. lloit. 210. 

Towle V. Lcavitt, 225. 

Town V. Needham. 129, 389. 

Townsend v. CoaU-s, 91. 

Tracy »•. Saekett. H4. 

Trillion Hanking Co. v. Woodruff, 50. 

Trexter v. Miller. 44S. 

Trigg r. Head, 91. 124, 364, 397, 400, 

408.412. 
Triplet r. Hailev, 121. 
Tripp I'. Chil.ls," 196. 
Trotter V. Wal.'<on. 20a 
Troup r. W Odd. 224. 
Trouj)e I'. Smith. 3lo. 
Tru.sdule v. V >r<\, 218. 
Tinst V. Delaplaiiie. 225, 
Tryon v. Whitmar-.h, :?25. ' 
Tucker ••. Andrews. 217. 

— IV Maddii!, 421. 



tai;m: or American casks cni.i). 



39 



Turni-r r. ('Iicfsi-iiuiii, Ihitj. 

— V. lliix'iciiiH. 101. 

— f. Na\i;;iili(jn To. 82. 
Tyler i'. IJliuk, ;m:.. 

— V. OiirdiKT, IMt'i. 
Tyson v. lliirdcsly, »'ir>. 

— r. rassiiiore, IJOS, 

IMiiicrr. Hills, 211. 

llniim Caiml Co. v. Llovd, 202. 

Uniti'il SlaUs IJnnk r. jlntli, 212. 

— I IKS. Co. J'. Sliriver, 2C.'i. 

— f. Hop, 1'.»7, 210. 

— I'. Mojirof, 421, 451. 
Cpton V. Vail, a2f.. 

N'nli'iitiiie v. Stewart, 1()3. 

Van Cliff v. Fleet. 1(18. 

Viin Cortland v. UiuK-iliill, 21)1, 447. 

Vanderpoi'l v. Kciinu v, 17iJ. 

Van I)orn v. Kobinson, 211. 

Van Epjjs v. \'an Ejips, 154. 

Vannickle r. Malta, 177. 

Van "Wyck r. Seward, VM), 198, 206. 

Varick v. \'>vi';;<x^, :ilO. 

Varliek v. Eiiward.s, 304. 

\'auj;han r. Tracey, 245. 

Vuasej' V. Doton, 75. 

Viazic V. Williani-s, 112. 17^, 187,226, 

300, 534, 337, 344, 366. 
Vorplank v. Sterry, 227, 232. 
\"iek V. Keys. 211. 
Villard r. Roberts, 264. 
Villines v. iS'orllcct. 157. 
Violett V. Violctt. 202. 
N'oorhees r. l)e Meyer, 417. 
Voorliies v. Eai'l, 52. 
Vose t'. Ilolcomb, 212. 

AVade v. C.recn, 196, 308, 

— V. I'ettebone, 169, 308. 

— V. Sherman, 329. 
Wagner i'. liaird. 306. 

— ». liird, 311. 
Wailes i-. Cooper, 241. 
Wakenian v. Grover, 212. 
Walden v. Louisiana Ins. Co., 119. 
Walker v. Ayres, 258. 

— V. City CouH'il. 292. 

— V. Collins. ; 43 

— II. (Jdbi-rt, 214. 

— t'. McConnieo, 375. 

— V. Widkir, 177. 
Wall V. Arrinpton, 419. 
Wallace v. Barlow, 104. 

— V. Craps, 266. 

Waller v. Arnii.*tead, 177, 178, 179. 
Wallis V. Loubat, 164. 
Walradt i-. Krown, 198. 
Walter r. Cralle, 231. 

— r. Wirticr, 213. 
Walton V. Cody, 107. 

— f. Wortbinixton, 146. 
Wainbnrzce v. Kennedy, 46, 309, 312. 



Waplcs V. WaiilcM, 288. 
Warb »'. W«-bl)<-r. 427. 
W arburton v. .\ikcn, 374. 
Ward I'. Lowry, 213. 

— V. Tackard. 103. 

— v. Kcyiiol(N, ;;27. 

— 1'. Trotter, 200. 
Warden v. Fosdick, 104, 820. 
Warner i: Haniels, 188, 407. 

— V. Norton, 211. 
Warnf)ck v. Wri;,'litrnan, 266. 
Warn-n v. Hall, 375. 
WaHhlnirn t'. .Merrills, 416, 418. 
Wa.shington Bank v. Lewis, 263. 
WasHon J'. IJovet, 327. 

— V. Kn;u'Iisli, 157. 
Watchman v. \\'arv, 212. 
AVaters v. Lernmon, 344. 
Watliiiis ('. Wallace, 386. 
Wat .son ('. Cox, 420. 

— V. McLaren, 127. 

— I'. Wells, 2()2, 419. 

— V. Williams, 211. 
Way V. Cuttinir, 310. 

— V. Lyon, 26ti. 
Weatherlord v. Fishback, 324. 

— J'. Tate, 304. 

Weaver v. Carter, 66, 408. 

— t'. Shrjork, 425. 
Webb t: White, 169. 
Webster ". Reid, 293. 
Weedon v. llawes, 197, 345. 
Weeks v. liurton, 325. 

— r. Robie, 327. 
AVciniar r. Clement, 327, 330. 
Weir V. Hale, 197. 

Welford >: Chancellor, 172, 344. 
Well v. Silverston, 386. 

— J'. Treadwell, 228, 
Wells 1'. Morrow, 318. 

— r. Pierce, 132. 
Wemple r. Stewart, 410. 
Wendell >: Van Renssler, 130, 168. 
West V. Emery, 325. 

— V. Til;,'h'man, 129. 
Wostall V. Austin, 335. 

Western R. R. Co. v. Babcock, 358, 407 
Westevcit r. Matheson, 189. 
Whalev ■'. Eliot t, 314, 405. 
Wheadon v. Olds. 405. 
Wheatley v. Martin, 447. 
Wheaton v. Wheaton, 4o2. •• 
Wheeler v. Sage, 182,374. 

— V. Smith, 404. 
Wheelock v. Wheeler, 57. 
Whelan r. Whelan. 144. 
Whilt u. Parker, 177. 
Whipple V. McClure, 144. 
White V. Cox, 117. 

— >'. Hen man. 367. 

— V. Dodds, 32S. 

— V. Flora, IS 7, 191. 

— V. Graves, 201, 34. V 



40 



TAr.i.r. nv av::uican casi.s (iri:i\ 



Wlilt© r. .l'>no8, 44. 
-- r. Mclnv, 891. 

— V. Snwvcr, 881. 

— r. Sf.ivtT, 77. 

— ». TruttiT. 8S5. 
_ r. Whilv. 875. 

— r. Williaiii!', 420. 

— V. Wilson. 420. 
\Y>,Hofor.l K. MoLeml. ncr,. 
\V|iitoli<»rn v. lliuos. 1I-<V 
Wliiti'siil.s V. (ireonlct% W7. 
Wliitinir V. Jdlinsoii. lUO. 
Wl.itn.-v ». Allitiro. r>-i".>. 880. 
AVIiiUnkor v. WiUintiis, 182. 
Wliitfur <: Vo-o,821t. 
\Vliittini:ton v. Wriijht, 181, 148. 
Wulccr r. ("ro.is, Cii. 
Wirkc's I.. Clnrko, 208, 228. 
Wickliire V. Leo, 884. 

Wiiraml r. Sichel, 828. 
Wiir^hs'^vorth f. "Steers, 147. 
Willi V. K.-e^ l.s'.>. 
Wiley f. Fitzimtrick, 405. 
WjlkV f. Kitz|mtrick. ir.ti. 
WilLfortl V. (iulbraitli, G<'.. 
Williams v. Cliampion. 400. 

r. First I'resbytcrian Society, 

80.7. 

— r. Fowler, 20.5. 
_ r. Il-lloway, 818. 
1'. .lidios, 2<ll. 

_ V. Mai-sliall. ]:,5. 

— t'. I'owcU, 1 7S. 
_ r. Keeil, 108, 297. 

V. UofTors, 84.'). 

_ r. Miiiircril. 41«. 

— ». Slaii'^rhter, lOC-. 

— «. Sprit:-. 218. 

V. SUtU'^UUm, 10ft. 

— t'. Stiirtcvaiit. 307. 

— V. Wilson, 845. 

— r. W(i(kI, 820. 
Willinnison f. «rown, 28G, 238, 

_ V. Kan.y, 104, 855, 307. 

»•. Williamson, 295. 
Willink V. Van.lewear. y8. 
V. illin I'. Henderson. 418. 

— r. ValK-tte, 258. 

Willman's Appeal, 179. 

WiUon I'. ClieNliire. 196. 

_ r. Fovet. 82H. 

— f. Hilly.r, 870. 
r. IloiiMer, 2tl(i 

— V. Jjiir.x.r, :!K4. 

_ t' .MiCiilloutfli, 23». 

— f. i:u«»ell. 197. 

— V. Stall', 108. 

— V. Tronp, 1.54. 

— V. Wall, 293. 



Wilson ». Wult^ in. 140. 188, 294. 

8SS. 414. 
Winchester v. Chnrtor, 207. 
WinelireniuM- v. Wersiger, 209. 
Wiiiiriitc r. Klnir. 299. 
Winsiiipe. .Kwelt, 447. 
Winxton V. (iwatlimey, 78.410. 
Wintirmnti- e. SnyiU'r. ISO, 397, 4oa 
Wintz V. Morrison, KH. 
Wiser v. lilaekley, 427. 
Wisernll >•. Hall.' 858. 
Wiss ,: Tripp. 197. 
Withers V. (Ireene, 827. 
Witter V. Ili^'htower, 214. 
Wolf i: l.uvst.r. 225. 
Wood ,: Hall. 225. 

— V. Hud-on. 178. 

— f. Mann. 81.S. 

_ V. Mel.illan, 133. 

— t'. rntt.-rson, 4U7. 
_ i-. White, 449. 

Wooden V. llaviland, 411*. 
Woodman v. Bodli.sh, 198, 231. 

— V. Freeman, 47, 340. 
Woodruff V. t'ook, 870,371. 
Woods 1'. North, 885. 
Woodworth V. Paiuie. 289. 
Woofittr V. Sherwood, 815. 
Woolen V. Hmkle, 824. 
Wor.len v. Williams, 258. 
Worhind I'. Kiinberlin, 201. 
Wormaek v. Uo-^rrs, 190. 
Wc.riidev V. Wormley, 157, 211, 8ia 
WriKhtV. Arnold, 178. 

— r. lirandis, 200. 
_ c. Delatield. 420. 
_ V. Henderson, 207. 

— r. Slaiinard, 187. 

— V. Wilson. 187. 
_ f. Wood, 246. 

Wvatt V. Avres. 874. 
Wyche f. llrcen, 418,414. 

Ycates v. Trior, 74. 
Yoder I'. Swope, 284. 
Youn'.; i'. limnpass, 94, 95 
_ I., lovell, 825, 820 

— V. Crai;:. 05, 00. 

— r. Frost, 804. 

_ H. Hall, 824. 825. 

_ r. Harris, 79. 886. 

_ r. M.( lure, 210. 

_ v. Hopkins, 108. 

r. Stevens, 140. 

_ 1. White, 200. 

Zahriska v. Smith. 108. 
Zehuer V. Kipler, 82.5. 



FRAUD AND MISTAKE. 



THE 

PRINCIl'LES AND PRACTICE OF EQUITY 



m CASES OF 



FKAUD AND MISTAKE. 



CHAPTER I. 

FRAUD. 



SECTION I.— GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 

The first province of a court of equity being to enforco 
truth in the dealings of men, the prevention and correction 
of fraud is part of the original and proper office of the court.* 

It is not easy to give a definition of what constitutes fraud 
in the extensive signification in which that term is undei-stood 
by a court of equity.' * Courts of equity have always avoided 
hampering themselves by defining or laying down, as a gen- 

' Warden v. Jones, 23 Beav. 493; " Green r. Nixon, 23 Beav. 630; Rey- 

Green v. Nixon, ib. 530 ; Ayre'a Case, nell v. Sprye, 1 D. M. <fe G. 691 ; per 
25 Beav. 528. Lord Crunwortli. 



* By the term fraud, the legal intent and effect of the act complained 
of, is meant. An illctjal act prejudicial to the rights of others, is a fraud 
upon such rights, although the parties may deny all intention of com- 
mitting a fraud. Kirby v. Ingersoll, 1 Ilaning. Ch. 172. 

The mere non-compliance with the terms of a contract, in not payinc 
the stipulated consideration, is not a fraud. Farrar v. Br'nlixcs, 3 Humph. 
566. 

4 41 



•5 J FiiAin. 

oral ]^ro]>osition, wliat sli.ill he lirl<l to c<>iis(ituto fraud.' 
Fraud is so various in \\>rui and coli.r that it is dijlicult, it" not 
inipossihle, to contiiio it within tlic limits ot' aiiv |»ri'c'isc 
dt'tinitiitn. The fertility of man's invention in devisiui^ now 
schemes of fraud is so >i:reat, that courts of e(|uity have de- 
clined the hopeless attem]>t of cmhracin^ in one fornuda all 
its varieties of fi»rni ami color, reserviiii; to tlicmselves the 
liherty to deal Mith it under Mliatevcr loi-m it may ]iresent 
itself. As new devices of fraud arc invented, they will he 
met by new correctives.' Fraud, in the contemplation of u 
court of erpiity, may he said to include properly all acts, 
omissions, and concealments which involve a hreach of lei^al 
or equitable duty, trust, (»r contidence, justly reposed, and are 
injurious to another ; or by which an undue or unconscientious 
advantap^e is taken of another.* * Frauil was delined by the 
Roman lawyers to be omjiis callidltas^ fallacia, machinatio 
ad circumveniendum^ fallendum^ decipiei^dum altenim ad- 
hihita.* All surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and other 
unfair way that is used to cheat any one is considered as 
fraud.' Fraud in all cases implies a willful act on the part of 
any one, whereby another is sought to be deprived, by illegal 
or inequitable means, of what he is entitled to, eithi-r at law 
or in equity.' By fraud, said Le Diane, J.,' he understood an 
intention to deceive, whether from an expectation of ad- 



• Uwlcy ». Iloopor. 3 Atk. 279. *\ Fonh. Eq. Hook 1, c. ii, §3; 

' .'<nwv»'r I'. Vernon, 1 Vorn. 387; Storvf Ki|. .lur. 187. 

Lnwl<v"p. Hooper, U Atk. 'J70; W.'bb * l>i;r. Lil). •». tit. 3, leg. 1. 

V. ll..rkf. 2 Sell, .t L.-f. cik;. Lord » riii.li. »:?'.!. 

IlftnlwirkcV Letter to I-onl Kaiiiiet, • (ireen i'. Nixon, 23 Beav. 635. 

Life of Lonl Kiiinies vol. 11. p. :iJl ; ' 2 Eoat, 108. 
Andenion v. Fil/.j;eralil, 1 11. L. 611, 
per Lord St Lc-uuiirda. 



♦ BclchT r. Belflier, 10 Ycrg. 121; Kcnncily r. Keniudy, 2 Ala. rj?! ; 
Gale c. Gale, 10 Hurb. 21'J. 



FRAUD. 43 

vantage to \ho ])arty liirn>clt', nr Cntiii ill will towards another. 
Collusion is considcnMl in ;i ((Mirt (<l'c(|iiily as ;i IVmikL' 

The variety of lurins which fraud may assume would seem 
to set all systematic classification at defiance, hut Lord Ilard- 
wicke has done much towards sim])lifying that hranch of the 
Buhject which relates to fraud in matters of contract hy divid- 
ing it into four heads. First, actual lVau<h nr </o/im vialus^ 
arising from facts and circumstances of imposition ; secondly, 
fraud afising from tlie intrinsic nature and suhject of the har- 
gain ; thirdly, frau<l which may be presumed from the circum- 
stances and condilioii of the parties contracting; fourthly, 
fraud which may be collected aii<l inferred from the matter 
and circumstances of the transaction as being an imposition 
and cheat on other persons, not parties to the transaction.* 

Courts of equity do not affect to consider fraud in the light 
of a crime; it is not their province to punish ;' nor have they 
any censorial authority ;* they interfere in cases of fraud in a 
civil and not in a criminal point of view. 
r Courts of equity have an original, independent, and inher- 
ent jurisdiction to relieve against every species of fraud,^* not 
being fraud of a penal nature. Every transfer or conveyance 
of property by what means soever it be done is in equity 
vitiated by fraud. Deeds, obligations, contracts, awards, judg- 
ments or decrees may be the instruments to which parties may 
resort to cover fraud, and through which they may obtain the 
most unrio:hteous advantajjes, but none of such devices or 



• Garth v. Cotton, 3 Atk. Y.")? ; Brom- * See 2 V. .t B. 298. 

ley V. Smith, 20 Bcav. 671 ; Spackman's * Colt v. WooUaston, 2 P. Wnis. 15fi ; 

Cose, 34 L. J. Ch. 321. Steel v. Baylis, ib. 219 ; Franks v. 

'Chesterfield t'. Jannsen, 2 Ves. 155, Weaver, 10 lieav. 297; Glasae v. ilar- 

156. shall, 15 Sim. 71. 

* See Waltham t;. Brougliton, 2 Atk. 
43. 



* Jones V. BoUes, 9 Wal. 3G-1 ; Phalcn r. Chirk, 19 Ct. 421. 



It 



rn Ai'ii. 



iustnuiUMits will \>c jx rmittiil \>\ a i-oiirt «il' equity to ohstnu't 
the re(iuisiti()ns of justice. If a ease of fraud he estahlished^ 
a eiMirt of ei|uity will set asi<le all transaetioiis foutidc d upon 
it hy whatever niaehiMerv they may have heen elfected, and not- 
withstandiuix any eontrivanei* hy wliich it may have been 
attempted to ju-otei-t them. It is immaterial whether Bucli 
machinery and contrivance consisted of a decree in equity and 
;i purchase nnder it, or of a judn^ment at law, or of other 
tran.-^actions 1)ctween the actors in the fraud.*" In all ca.ses of 
fraud, not penal, a court of efpiity has u concurrent juriudic- 
tion with courts of law,'- with the sinu^lo exception as to fraud 
in obtainini^ a will. With respect to fraud used in obtaining 
the cxecuti(»n or settiui; up a will, the juri.N<liction docs not 
exi.<t. If the will V)e of real estate it is exclusively co'^nizable 
at law;'* if of i)ersnnal estate in the Court of Probate.'' The 
courts of ordinary jurisdiction being competent to deal with 
the matter, there is no occasion for invoking the aid of a court 



, 5 



of equity 

Courts of equity and courts of law have in general a con- 
current jurisdiction to suppress and relieve against frand,t 
but there are many courses of conduct wliich a court of equity 



' I5owen r. Evans. 2 II. L 281. See IJriijht i: Kynon, 1 Uurr. 3".>«; AJam 

South .Sea ("o. v. IJuinpstond, 3 Viii. son r. KviU, 2 II. A* AI. 71. 

Ah. 140; Kiiliinond v. Tuvl'iir, 1 P. * I'owis i'. Andrews. 2 Hro. P. C.634 ; 

Wmfl. 7:if.; Kilmer c. Gott. 1 \W>. V. (J. Hates r. (Jrav.s, 2 Ves. .1. 287; Jones 

2:Ji»; Wliite r. ilall, 12 Ves. :'.2I : Il.T- r. Gre;r<)ry. 2 D.J. <L S. 87. 

tx-rl f. Hulkeley, Kid;,'. 3im); lJrydi,'e.s * Kerriik v. Uraiisby, 7 Hro. P. C. 

f. IJranliil. 12 Sim. 3f.y; Kohinson v. 437; Allen r. Maepherson, 1 11. L. 191 ; 

Lord Vernon, 7 C. H. N. S. 2:il ; Uogers Jones v. Gregory, 2 D. J. »t S. 87. 

r. lladl.y, :W L. J. Kxeli. 211. » 10. 

' Colt V. WooUttatou, 2 P. Wiu3. 150; 



* Pcrigue r. Wood, 1 Jolins. Ch. 401 ; Nilcs v. AmlcTflOil, T) How. 
(MiBS.) 865; Iloitt r. llolconih, 2:5 N. II. r,'.]r,. 

t Smith e. Mclvcr, 9 Wlicat. r,:i2 ; Wliite r. JoncH, 4 Call. '25:i; Allen 
c. HopHon, 1 Frcein. 27<»; lladcti r. (!:ir<l<n, 7 Leif^ii, l-")"; I'oon- r. Price- 
■'» Lfi^li, 52; Crane r. Conklin, Sa.xtun, oH\ ; Dortiiig c. Singery, 4 II. & 
M( II. :J5'b. 



KRArn. 45 

construes to Itc riMUiliilciit, w hicii (•imiiot be taken notice of hy 
a court of law,* tlioii;;li it is iKjt easy to dciiiie the distinction 
between that which ii court of equity treats as ii frau<l and that 
wliich is considered fraud at law.' "There is a very great dis- 
tinction," said Kimlcivlcy, V.-d, iu Stewart v. Great Western 
Ilailway Company,' " between fraud as regarded by a court of 
e((uity and fraud as regarded by a court of law. To draw the 
line between them, and to give such a detinition of the one 
and of the other as should meet all possible cases would be 
a very difHcult, if not impossible, task. In order to constitute 
fraud at common law, it is not enough to show that fraud in 
the sense of misrepresentation and undue advantage of the 
position of the parties said to be imposed on has been commit- 
ted, but the extent of tlic fraud must be brought home to 
the party to the action who is charged with it. In the case 
of fraud in the sense of a court of equity, a court of equity will 
take into account all the circumstances of the case — not only 
the act and intention of the party, but the circumstances under 
which the act was done ; the position of the party who is said 
to be imposed upon; his being inojps consilU ^ his being in a 
state of bodily, and, therefore, mental weakness, and so on, 
J^on conatat these are sufhcient to constitute legal fraud." 

If there is a full, perfect, and complete remedy at law, it is 
not the course of the court to interfere.** Ihit the eircum- 



' Troncliard v. Wanlej-, 2 P. Wms. ^ 2 Dr. & Sm. 43S. 11 Jur. N. S. 627. 

160; Eutelu,-!- v. Butelier, 1 V. A B. 98; * Newliani v. May, 13 Pri. 752; Deere 

Clarke v. Mamiini;, 7 15cav. 167. v. Guest, 1 M. tfe C. 516. 

* Traill v. Baring, 33 L. J. Ch. 521. 



♦ Russell r. Clark's Executors, 7 Crunch, G9. 

Before a creditor can obtain the aid of a court of chancery to set aside 
a fraudulent conveyance, he must obtain judgment, issue an execution 
and procure a return of nulla bona. Hendricks r. Robinson. 2 Johns. Ch. 
283 ; Brinkerhof c. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. 671 ; s. c. 6 Johns. Cii. 139; Ilal- 
bert r. Grant, i Mon. 581 ; Poague r. Boyce, G J. J. Marsh. 70 ; Chamber- 



.[[] FRAl'D. 

6tanco that relief may bo liad at law does not excliulo the jiiris- 
(lii-tion of the court.* The rule of the court is to interfcro in 
all causes where the interests of justice call for and require its 
interference.'* Althouirh a iiiaii ni:iY have a good defence to 
an action at law, he is n..t prcrhi.h'-l from i.ruceedinj,' in equity 
to restrain the action. It is eM()U«>;h if ho can show an equit- 
able case.' If there be an e«iuital)le case stated by the bill, 
there is jurisdiction to interfere by way of injunction, if neees- 

• Evnns v. RicknoU. 6 Vcs. 183 ; Ad- 31 ; Ch.-storfifM r. Jnnnscn tJ \c^ IM ; 

nmson v. Evitt. 2 H. A M. 70; Wilson Unitiett v. Salmon 6 1). MAG 40; 

f Short f. 11.1 St-.C). 87V»; llohson t-. Slim ••. Crouchcr, 1 D. !•. & J. 6^.1; 

Earl of ixv.m. 4 Jur. N. S. 24:.; ]>cr Barry r. Crosskey 2 J A II 1. 

Lord C'ranworlh; Slim v. CrouchtT, 1 ' lomil.ou-h v. Lender. 1.. L. J. Cli. 

I) F A- J 523 ^''^'' I-oi'lon Aftsurauco Co. v. Moses, 

« Johnson v. Ogilvy, 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 1 1 L. T. 5:j2. 



Iftvne f. Temple, 2 Rand. 384; Griffin v. Nitchcr, 57 Mc. 270; Jones r. 
Green, 1 Wall. 330. 

After judjrtnent by default ajjainst the debtor wlio has made a fraudu- 
lent conveyance, an attaching creditor may jKOCced in chancery. Dodije 
r. Griswold. 8 N. H. 425. 

A iudgmcnt need not be obtained when tlic fraudulent grantor is 

deceased. O'Brien r. Coulter, 2 Bluckf. 421 ; Birely v. Staley, 5 G. & J. 432. 

Where the claim is purely equitable, and such as a court of e(|ulty will 

take cognizance of in the first instance, it will go on and remove all 

obstructions to its enforcement. Ilalbert r. Grant, 4 Mon. 580. 

If a claim is to be .satisfied out of a fund which is accessible only by 
the aid of a court of equity, application may be made in the first instance 
to that court. O'Brien f. Coulter, 2 Blackf. 421. 

If parties concerned in a partnership have dissolved, and made a dis- 
position of the i)roperty which is fraudulent, as to partnership crclitors, ii 
court of equity will entertain a bill filed by the latter, although they are 
simple contract creditors. Lawton r. Levy, 2 Edw. Ch. I'J."). 

It is not enough that tiierc is a remedy at law ; it must be plain and 
ade«iuate— in other words, as practical and efficient to the ends of justice 
and its prompt udminiatratiou as the remedy iu eijuity. Boycc c. Grundy, 
3 Pet. 377. 

• Wamburzee v. Kennedy, 4 Dessau, 474. 

A court of ecjuity will annul an instrument obtained l)y fravid. nlthoiigh 
there may Ix- a good defence at law. Johnson v. llendley, 5 .Munf. 21U; 
llcnshaw r. Atkin», 2 Hoot, 7. 

If the grantor is insolvent, a lx>nd of conveyance whi( h has been ob- 



FRAUD. 47 

Bary, and alfio by way of ordering tlio instrmnont to be deliv- 
ered 11]).* The question fur tbe eourt to eonsider alwayH is, 
Mlu'fhcr tlic facts arc fiuch as to constitute tliat kind of fraud, 
uhicli a cduit (if law wuuld necessarily take cognizance of and 
treat as a iVaud in tlic sanir inanncr and lu tlic same extent as 
a court of eijuity would du.* The superi'.a- jjowers and effi- 
ciency of a court of equity in niuldini^ its decrees so as to 
meet the cxi^ijcncies of each ])articular case and do justice be- 
tween the |)ai"ties in tlic in<)>t iniimtc detail, is often of itself a 
sufficient ground for the exercise of the jurisdiction in cases 
where there is a clear remedy at law.' In Colt v. AVoollaston* 
it was held that a person who had been induced by fraud on 
the part of the promoters of a public company to subscribe 
for shares might obtain his money back by a bill in equity, 
although an action at law might have been brought for the 
same purpose with success. This doctrine has ever since been 
recognized as correct, and it has been frecjuently acted on.' If 
a case of fraud be presented to the court, an equity is at once 
raised to restore the parties deceived, as nearly as possible, to 
the situation in which Init fur the fraud they would have stood, 



' Traill V. BarincT, 33 L. J. Ch. 527, Western Railway Co., 2 Dr. <t Sni. 438 

per Turner, L. J. tSce Lloyd v. Clarke, 11 Jur. N. S. 627. 
6 Beav. :U)l); Llewcllin r. Tacc, 1 W. li. * 2 P. Wui3. 154. 

28; Smilli v. llcese River Co., L. R. 2 ' Green v. Barrett, 1 Sim. 45; Elain 

Eq. 2fi4. V. Agar, 2 Sim. 28'.» ; Stainbank v. Fern- 

* Ayre's Case, 25 Beav. 528; Stewart ley, 'J biin. 55G ; Cridland v. I)e Mauley. 

V. Great Western Railway Co., 2 Dr. <k 1 Deg. (fc Sm. 45'.t ; Beecliing v. Lloyd, 

Sm. 438. 3 Drew. 227 ; Bariy i-. Crosskey, 2 J. 

'Bright I,'. Eynon, 1 I'urr. 30G; Ayre's <fe II. 1; Henderson v. Lacon, L. R. 5 

Case, 25 Beav. 52.S; Slim v. Crouehcr, Kq. 250. But see Thompson r. Bar- 

1 D. F. <t J. 523; Stewart v. Great clay, 9 L. J. Ch. 219, per Lord Broug- 
ham. 



tained by fraud Avill be rescinded for defect of title, altlinugli there may 
be a good defence at law. Ingram v. Morgan ct oL, 4 Humph. G6. 

There is no distinction between cases of relief when damages are occa- 
Bioned by framl and when they arc occasioned by breach of contract. If 
there is an adequate remedy at law, a court of equity has no jurisdiction. 
"Woodman v. Freeman, 25 Me. 531. 



48 ruAin. 

aiul for wliicli (l:iin:ii;os in an adinn miixlit ho a wry \nixdv- 
<juati' ivmiMly. It is no oltjoctiou t.. this c'<|uity tliat tho I'actti 
mav also 8Ui>i)ort an action.' If the aiMi'init of danKi<;e is asccr- 
taini'il, «)!* (•aj)a1»lo of ln'in:; c.i.-ily ax-crlaimd, tin- court will 
not send tho matter to a jury.'' 

In tho viow of a court of c(iuity, a man who has hcon 
inilncoil by fraud to convoy an estate remains the owner, sub- 
ject to the repayment of the moneys which he has received." 

A c<»ntract or other transaction induced or tainted by fraud 
is not void, but only voidable at the election of the party de- 
frauded.** The party defrauded has a ri^dit to have it avoi<le<l, 
unless lie has by his own act put it out of his power to rein- 
Btate the party ajj^ainst whom he seeks relief in the jio>ition in 
which he stood at tlio time of the transaction,' or unless some 
innocent party would be prejudiced thereby.' The transaction 
beinij valid until it is avoided, third parties without notice of 
the fraud may in the meantime ac(piirc ri<^hts and interests in 
the matter which they may enforce against the jiarty de- 
frauded.' Persons, for instance, who have been induced by the 

•Blair v. Broniley, 2 Ph. .SCI, per die. L. IS. I Sc. App. Ca. 1.50; Ookes 

Lord Cottcnhnm; Walshnm v. Stainton, v. Tiirquaiid, L. 11. \i A\>\^. C.x. 346. 

1 D. J. «!: S. r.7S; St. .\iil..vn t\ Smart, ' White i'. Canien. Ui C. 15. ".»!'.»; De- 

L. R. .'> l'.<|. ls3, Si'c Harry i-. Cross- posit and <;i'iu'ral Lifi- Assuraiiec Co. c. 

kev. 2J. .t IL I. infra, Ayscou;,'''. « E. «fe H. 7<'.l; llarke v. 

» Intjrftin v. Tiiorii. 7 Ha. 7'".. See Dickson. El. HI. A KI. ItS; NicoU'H 

nendtTson v. Lacon. L. U. 5 Kq. 2,'i<); Casi-, :{ 1). it J. 387; Mixir's Coso, 4 1) 

coiiip. Whitiuore f. ilackeson, 10 Buav. «t J. r)St). 

12K. " Sfliollu-ld >: Tcmi.l.T, 1 1>. .t .1. I'l'i. 

* Stump I'. (Jabv. 2 D. M. A G. 630. ' ( (aki-s r. Tiir«iiiaiid, L. H. '1 App. 

♦ Clarke r. Dickwon. Kl. Bl. «t Kl. Ca. :i7.'>. Soc Kiuj,'iford ,). ilcrry, 1 1 
148; liawlins r. Wickliam, H 1). »t J. Excli. 579. 

iJ22. Wt'Btcrn Bank of Scolluml v. Ad- 



• Bank of Gcor;,'ia v. Ili^'ginbottum, Pit. 4S ; Lockbridj^'C ». Fester 
et III, 4 8can>. 509. 

That i» ulisolutfly v<i'nl wliicli tlic law or iIk- iiiitiiri- of tliiiijjs forbids 
to bl- «nforr«-(l at all, and that is relatively void wliich the law condnnnH 
hH a wronf,' to individual-i. an<l nfiis/'s to enforce as to iheuK Act.s tainted 
with infimiity may well bi- called by some void and by others voidable, 
UcauiK', regarded in dilTcreut aspects, they are botli. A contract may for 



ruAii). 49 

fraiul of tli(> (lii-fcfors of a ('(niiiiaiiy to hooonio hharelioMcrfi of 
the foiiipaiiv, caiinol, as a^Miiist crcditurs (»f the company, rcjm- 
(iiate their liability as shareholders after <liscoverin<5 the fraud.' 

The case of <^oo(l.s, or personal property, ohtained by felony, 
or by a trick, iiiii-l be distin<^iiislici] IVdmi the case of «;oods 
obtaiiKMl by Iraiid. In the oiiG case, the owner has no mind or 
intent to part with his i)ropcrty in tlic p)od>. In the (jther 
case, he acts with the intenti(»n of partiiii^ witli the ])roperty, 
thuULili the intention lias been induced by undue; means.'' 
Goods obtained by felony, or by a trick, may be reclaimed by 
the true owner even from a hona fide pui'cliaser,^ unless they 
luive been purchased in market overt. 

A distinction must also be taken between cases where a 
man executes an instrument with the mind and intenti(jn to 



' Oakc3 V. Turquand, L. R. 2 App. Ca. Talfomd, JJ. ; TTardman v. Booth, 1 II. 
825. tfeC. 8u:5. 

' 10 C. B. <.)2I, 'J27, per Williams and ' llardinaii v. IJootli, 1 II. «fc C. 803. 



u time 1)C voitlaMe as aijainst one, and void as against the others whom it 
is intended to ad'iet; voidalile as against tlie parties doing wrong and void 
us against tlic persons wronged ; or, ticc vo'sa, voi<lable in favor of the 
persons wronr/.d, and void in favor of tlic wrong-doer; void as not bind- 
ing to fultill, and voidable after fulfillment ; voidable in fact because void 
or not binding in right. Persons intended to be wronged by a transac- 
tion are not bound by it, nor are they bound to reject it. They may 
adopt, or contirni, or agree to be bound by it. Their consent, which, be- 
cause of the wrong, the law considers as not given, may l)e given after the 
wrong becomes known, and then, if given with the freedom, intelligence 
and deliberation that the law of ratification retjuires, and in a fonn ade- 
quate to the particular kind of contract, they become willing parties to 
the contract, bound equally with others. Pearsoll v. Chapin, 44 Pcnn. 0. 

A party who aflirms a voidable contract, is bound by it in all its par- 
ticulars. Galloway v. Uolmes, 1 Doug. 330. 

Fraud in a conveyance can only be set up by the jiarties to a deed and 
those who have succeeded to their rights, and not by third parties. Love 
V. Belk, 1 Ired. Ch. 103. 

Tbe assignee of a contract cannot take advantage of any fraud prac- 
ticed upo& his grantor in making it. CaiToll r. Potter, Walk. Ch, o55. 



5() ruAii). 

cxcvute it, thouijh liis assent iiiav liavc ln'iii ohtaiiu'd by iVaud, 
and casos wlure a man is by iVamluleiit cdntrivance induced to 
j)Ut his liand and seal to an instrument wliieli lie never in- 
tended and had no mind t(» execute, ll a man liavim,' no mind 
or intention to execute a particular instrument does what he 
does with the mind and intention to execute a deed of a ditler- 
ent kind, and lor a dillerent purj)ose from that which by fraud 
antl deceit wjis substituted, the deed is not voidable but void, 
and no estate passes, at least as between the parties to the in- 
strument and parties takini; witli notice.** Thus, where a man 
intending to execute a covenant to produce title deeds, put his 
hand and seal to a deed which was falsely and fraudulently 
read over to him, and represented as being a covenant to pro- 
duce, when in fact it was a mortgage, tlie deed was hcM void 
as being a cheat and trick,* So also, where a broker fraudu- 
lently obtained from his emj)loyer the cancellation of his signa- 
ture to a transfer of shares which he had bought for him, and 
by means of the cancelled transfer and certificates induced the 
vendor to execute a fresh transfer to himself, and thereuj)on 
got the shares registered in his own name, and then mortgaged 
them to the defendant, it was held that the etiect of the tirst 
transfer was not destroyed by the cancellation fraudulently ob- 

« Vorley f. Cooke, 1 Giff. 231 ; Of^il- » Vorlcy v. Cooke, 1 Ciff. 234 ; Lee v. 

vie V. Jeaffreson, 2 Giff. 353. Sjee fur- Angus, 15 W. li. 111), 
ther, infra. 



* A person wlio has ol)tuinc<l an absoliitc deed umliT u inoiniso to exe- 
cute a tlefoasiinc-f, may i)e coinpelled to pi rform liis promise. r«rk r. 
IJaMwin, 1 Hoot, -L't't. 

The payee of a note wlio has l)ecn in«lucctl by frau<l to destroy it, may 
have relief in equity. Hiehards r. Fridley AVrijilit, 1(57. 

A niortKaK*! wliicli has Iteen released tliroiif^ii fraud may t)C rein8tnt<.*d. 
Toon; c. Price, 5 Leif,di, 52; Trenton Hanking Co. r. WoodrutT, 1 Green. 
Ch. 117; Uurnesr. Carmark, 1 IJ.irl.. :!1»2; Lynch r. Tihluts. 21 Unrh. 51. 

A fraudulent releiuie. obtained fr«)m one jjartner, (h>es not txtinguish 
the lien of the other partners. Canal Co. f. Gordon, >Vall. 501. 



ruAiD. 51 

tained, and the rcui.-t ration was sot a^idc.' So ,m1ho, in a case 
wliiTc the persons named as ^^rantcji" and ^^rantce in :i deed liad 
no mind or intention that any estato should ]»ass from the one 
to the other, and were merely dieated into the execution of 
deeds without a kno\\led::;e of their contentrf, no estate was 
liehl to pass.'^ 

Similar considerations ap])ly to the case of for^^-d instru- 
ments. Xo estate can ])ass under a forced instrument,' but in 
special casis an innocent ]>:irty whose title to ])roperty is de- 
rived under a forged instrument may, as against the party on 
whom the forgery has been practiced, have a better etjuity to 
tlie retention of the property.* 

If a transaction lias been ori^•inally founded on fraud, the 
original vice will continue to taint it, however long the nego- 
tiation may continue, or into whatever ramifications it may ex- 
tend." Not only is the person wdio has committed the fraud 
precluded from deriving any brnetit under it, but an innocent 
person is so likewise, unless there has been some consideration 
moving from himself.® 

In equity, no length of time will run to protect or screen 
fraud.' " Those," said Lord Cottenham in Trevelyan v. Char- 
ter,^ " who may be disposed fraudulently to appropriate to 
themselves the property of others, may be assured that no time 
will secure them in the enjoyment of their ])lunder; but that 
their children's children will be compelled by this court to 



'Donaldson v. Gillott, L. R. 3 Eq. Lord El.lon ; Godilard i'. Carlisle, 9 IVi. 

277. !'■>'.); Daiibeney r. Cockburn, 1 Mer. 

' Ogilvie V. Jeaffreson, 2 Oiff. 353. 64:i ; Jiowen v. Evans, 2 II. L. 259; 

» Esdaile v. La Nauzc, 1 Y. & C. 391; Kusscll v. Jackson, ID lla. 212 ; Schol- 

Boursot r. Savage, L. R. 2 Eq. 134. field v. Tenipler, Johns. 105; 4 D. «k 

* Jones f. Towles, 3M. <tK. 581. See J. 429; T()i>hani ;•. Duke of rortland, 

fuitlier, itifm. 1 D. J. it S. 5i",9, /.-)• Turner, L. J. 

^ Bridglnan v. Green, -2 Ves. 62fi; ' Cutterell v. I'ur.hase. Forre.st, 61 ; 

Revnell "c. Sprye, 1 D. M. it G. HOO, Irvine v. Kirkpatrick, 7 Ikdl's Sc. App. 

697; JJowen i'.' Evans. 2 H. L. 281; Ca. 1S6; Allfrey v. Allfrey, 1 Mac. «k 

Smith 1'. Kay, 7 II. L. 750, 775. G. 99 ; Bowen v. Evans, 2 II. L. 257 ; 

' Bridgman f. Green, 2 Ves. 626; Walshani !•. Stainfon, 1 D. J. «t S. 678. 

Ilugueuiu I'. Basley, 14 Ves. 280; per M L. J. Cb. N. S. 214. 



52 ruAii). 

restore it to those tVotn whom it has hocii tVauduleiitly ah- 
stnu-teil."' The rii^dit of the jtarty (letVaiKU'd to have the trans- 
action set aside, is not atl'eeted hy hipse of time, so h)n«r as he 
remains without any fault of his ..wn in i;,Mioranco of the fraud 
which has been coinmittetl.'- The e<iiiity is imt <•( :itiiic(l to tlie 
party defrauded, hut extends to heirs at hiw in respect of 

frauds committed on their ancestor.' 

A man cannot repudiate a transaction as far as it is 
onerous to liimself, and adojtt it as far as it is heneticial. lie 
must be able to deal with the whole either by adoptiuij or 
rejecting it in tofo}* There may, however, be cases in whidi 
the same transaction may be good as to part and for certain 
purposes, although voidable as to otlicr i)arts and for other 
])urposes.' If a transaction is fair as between the parties to 
it, it is not invalid merely because it may have been concocted 
and brought about by a third party with a fraudulent intention 
of benefiting himself. In such a case, so far as regards the 
third i>arty, the whole may be looked upon as one transaction 

'See Allen v. firejory, 2 Eil. 'JSO; 'Bennett v. "W'atle, 1 l>itk. R4 ; Bel- 

WluiUev f. Whaliev. i"McV. 4:j(J; Chen- lamy v. Sabine, 2 I'll, -i:.!); Hanson v. 

nell r. Martin, it L! J. ell. 2USI. KeaVuiE:, 1 lln. 1; Grout Luxemburg 

' Blair v. Bromlev, 2 I'll. 3(Jl ; Ilolfe Kailwav Co. v. Ma^nay, 2:. Beav. 694. 

V. Gre'.rory, ^4 L. J."Cli. 275. ' Bellamy v. Sabine, 2 I'h. 42.'), 437. 

• Fulkner i-. O'Brien, 2 Ba. &. Bo. 221. 



♦ Farmers' Bank of Va. r. Groves, 13 How. 51 : Kinney r. Kieman, 2 
Lans. 492 ; Voorhics r. Earl, 2 Hill, 288; Jankins r. Simpson. 2 Sliep. H64 ; 
Fay r. Oliver. 20 Vt. 118; Jennintrs r. Uuzo. 1:5 111. (UO; Masson r. Bovet, 
1 Dcnio. 74 ; Clarkson r. Mitcliell. W E. 1). Smith. 2G1) ; Ji-wett r. Petit, 4 
Mich. 50S; Kimlmll t. Ciinuin^'ham, 4 Mass. 504 ; Stevens e. Hyde, 83 
Barb. 171 ; McGuire v. Callahan. 19 Ind. 128. 

The proper applicaticm of live rule in ca.sc of a sale is to the property 
Hold when that consists of several particulars : The contract cannot be 
reseinded, as to a part of the jiroperty, and left in force as to the rest. 
But if the vendor has been induced throuj^di imposition elTeeled by the 
ven<lee to accept that in payment which proves to be no sueh payment as 
l>e bad the right to e.xpeet, he is periuiltcd to renounce it, and ])rosecuto 
liis claim for the property sold as if no sueh payment had been attempted. 
Loomis c. Wainwright, 21 Vt. 520; Martin v. Roberts, 5 Cush. 130. 



:\iisi:i:ri:r,si:NTATi<»N'. 53 

ill (trdi'i* to JikI^c of liis inolivos, and to ]m[ 11 coiiBtruction 
upon his acts: Imt, as rt'^Mnls the other two, wlio, thou^li 
rtU'ectecl by one i»urt of the transucti(jn, may Ijc total stran^erw 
to tlio other part, it is not only not neoesBary, hut it would he 
unjust to eonsider every j)art of tlie transaction alfectcil hy 
objections, which, in fact, apply only to particular portions of 
it.' If, for instance, a man brin^rs about an arrangement 
between father and son, in order that he mi^ht afterwards deal 
with the son, the motive mi<^lit be most improper, but the 
arrani^enient between father and son must be judged of uj)on 
its own merits.^ Nor is an instrument which has been entered 
into hetween parties for a i)urpose which may be considered 
fraudulent as against a third party necessarily invalid as 
between themselves/ 



SECTION II.— MISREPRESENTATION— CONCEALMENT. 

The largest class of cases in which courts of justice are 
called upon to give relief against fraud, is where there has 
been a misrepresentation, or auygestio falsi} If a man rep- 
resents, as true, that which he knows to be false, and makes 
the representation in such a way, or under such circumstances 
as to induce a reasonable man to believe that it is true, and is 
meant to be acted on, and the person to whom the representa- 
tion has been made, believing it to be true, acts upon the 
faith of it, and by so acting sustains damage, there is fraud to 
support an action of deceit at law, and to be a ground for the 
rescission of the transaction in equity.' * It is not, however, 

' lb. 438. * Broderick v. Broderick, 1 P. Wms. 

» lb. 240; Jarvis v. Duke, 1 Vcrn. 20. 

* Shaw v, Jeffery, 13 Moo. P. C. 432. "Evans v. Biekncll, 6 Vea. 174; 



* Where a party misrepresents a material fact by which another is 
misled or imposed upon, to obtain an undue advantage of him, it is 



54 Misrvi:i'ur.si;NTATiON. 

neccssnrv, in order to const ituto frnud, that a man who makes 
a false representation should know it to ho ialse. It is enouj^h 
that it he false, if it he made recklessly without an honest 
belief in its truth, or without reasonable grounds for believing 
it to be true, and be made di'liberatciy and in such a way as to 
pive the ])crson to wliom it is made reasonable ground for 
supj>osing that it was meant to be acted on, and has been acted 
on by him accordingly.* If a man makes a representation as 
of his o^vn knowletlge, not knowing whether it be true or 
false, and it is in lact untrue, he is guilty of fraud, as much as 
if he knew it to be untrue. It is in law a willful falsehood for 
a man to assert as of his own knowledge a nuitter of which ho 
has no knowledge.'* It is a wrong to state as true what the 
person making such statement does not know to be true, even 
though he does not know it to be false, but believes without 



Edwnrdfl •' M'Cleay, 2 Sw. 2R7 ; Adnm- v. Edmonds, 13 C. B. 78fi; Thorn v. 

son r. Kvitt. 2 U. A M. 71; Attwoo.l v. Biijlrtiid, 8 Exch. 72r.; llutlon v. Roa- 

Smali 6 CI. <t Fin. 233; Gerhard i-. sit or. 7 D. M. & O. 23; Uawlins v. 

Bates.' 2 E. A B. 475; Jcnninfjs r. W"ickhnm,3 1). it J. 30J ; .Swan r. North 

Brouirhton. C D. M. A G. 12f.; Rawlins Britisli Australian ('<>.. 2 II. &. V. 182. 

r Wickham. 3 D. A J. 301; Slim i-. !>eo We.^torn Hank of Scothuid i-. Addic, 

CroiicluT, 1 i). F. A .1. M8. L. H. 1 Sc. \Y\y Cix. l.:2. 

• J'ickard v. Sears, t> A. <t E. 4r,9; » Hazard v. Irwin, IS I'uk. (Amer.) 

Taylor v. Ashwortli. 11 M. ct W. 413; Ofi ; Stuno v. Denny, 4 Mete (Amer.) 

West r. Jones, 1 Sim. N. S. 20? ; Evans 151. 



fraud. Donclson r. Clements, Mcij,'*', 155. The representation must have 
been deliberately made. Representations of a fii<,'itivc sort uttered 
casually in a mi.xed conversation from impulse rather than reflection 
should lie cautiously received when they arc to be made the basis of 
liability. It is tlie delil>erate will and intention of the person utterinjj 
the words, and fuirly to be inferred therefrom, and not tlicir naked 
import that ouj,dit to make him liable. The person making the 
representations should >>c api)ri.sed by the jierson to whom they are 
made of the purpose for whieh they are required. They must Ik- made 
delilKrat<ly, with the conHciousne.ss, on the part of the person making 
thcni that they will Iw conrKle*! in by the person to whom they arc made. 
Casey c. AUcn, 1 A. K, Marsh. 405. 



mi«uki'Ui:si:ntati()n. 5.'> 

sufficient grouruld that tlio statement will iiltimately turn out 
to be correct.* * 

An intention to dcecivu bcin^^ a necessary elenieut or 
inL'redient of fraud, a false representation docs not amount to 
a fraud at law, unless it be iii.idc with a fraiKlidcnt intent. 
There is a fraudulent intent if a man, either with the view of 
benefitiiii^ himself, or misleading another into a course of 
action which may be injurious to him, makes a representation 
which he knows to be false, or which he docs not believe to be 
true.' The legal definition of fraud does not, however, include 
necessarily any degree of moral tnii)itude.' There is fraud in 
law, if a man makes a representation which he knows to be 
folsc, or does not honestly believe to be true, with the view to 
induce another to act on the faith, who does so accordingly, 
and by so doing sustains damage, although he may have had 
no dishonest purpose in making the representation. If a man 
knowingly aiul willfully makes a false representation, whereby 
another is misled to his prejudice, it is immaterial that there 
may have been no intention on his part to l)enefit himself, or 
to injure the person to whom the representation was made. 
If a man says what is folse within his knowledge, or what he 
has no reasonable ground for believing to be true, and makes 



> 1 Smout !'. Ilbery, 10 M. <fe W. 10. "6 51. <t W. 377 ; 10 M. & W. 155, 

'Taylor v. Asliworth, 11 M. <fe W. ;)cr Lord Abinger. 
413 ; Evnns v. Eilmoiuls, 13 C. B. 786 ; 
Thorn V. Bigland, 8 Excli. 725. 



* Bennett r. Judson, 21 N. Y. 238 ; Harding r. Randall, 15 Me. 332 ; 
Stone V. Denny, 4 Met. 151 ; Buford r. Caldwell, 3 Mo. 477. 

When a party to a contract places a known trust and confidence in 
the other party, and acts upon his opinion, any misrepresentation by the 
party so trusted in a material matter, constituting an inducement or 
motive to the act of the other party, and by which an undue advantage is 
taken of bira, is regarded as a fraud. Laidlaw r. Organ, 2 Wheat. 178; 
Jouzin V. Toulmin, 9 Ala. 6G2 ; Shaeffor v. Sleade, 7 Blackf. 178 ; ilunt v. 
Moore, 2 Barr. 105. 



50 MlSUi:i'Ri:SENTATll)N. 

t!ie representation witli tlie view to induce juu)ther to act upon 
it, wlio iloes so nc'coriliuirly to liis prejiulice, the l:nv iin])Uted 
t(t liim a tVamlulrnt intent, altliouirh lie may not liavi- Iteen in 
taet instijjatetl l>v a ninrally had nintivr. An iiitrntinn to 
deceive i»r a iVaudnlent intent in tlie li'ii:al acceptation of the 
tcnn, depends upon the knowledi^e or helief respecting' the 
falseliood of the statement, and not u])on the actual dishonesty 
«)f jturpose in niakinij the statement.* * Where, for instance, 
the defendant had acce])ted a hill of exchange in the name of 
the drawee, ]mri>ortin^' to <1«» so hy ])rocuration, knbwinj; that 
in fact he had no such authority, hut fully helievin^' that the 
acceptance would be sanctioned and the bill paid by the 
<lrawee, and the drawee repudiated the acceptance, it was held, 
though the jury negatived a fraudulent intention in fact, that 
the vletendaut had committed a fraud in law hy making a 
representation which he knew to he untr\ie. and whii-h ho 
intended others to act upon.' 

The presence or absence of a corrupt motive or dishonest 
purpose distinguishes moral from legal fraud. A misrepresen- 
tation made without a corrupt motive or dishonest purpose is 
ealled legal fraud. If there be present a corrupt motive or 
dishonest purpose in making a misrepresentation, there is 
moral fraud.' 

In Wilde v. Gibson,* a fraudulent intention was not im- 
puted to a man by reason merely of his having constructive 
notice that a representation made by him was untrue, when ho 

• FortiT V. Charles. 7 Bini;. 107 ; Pol- » Mocna r. Ilovwortli. 10 M. A W. 

hill V. WnlNr, '.i H. A Atl. Ill; Murray r.l7, /xr Lord ^VcMlslt•ydulc ; Wilde ». 
r. Miinn, '2 Kxdi. r.ll. jxr Lord W'vu'a- fJihson, 1 IL L. C'.Wi, per Lord Cami> 
lovdal.-: Willi.' r. (Jibhon, 1 H. L. f,;i:t, hill. 

• 1 II. L. r.or). 
A Ad. 114. 



II-, <jai< , " w.^.., 

Iter I>or<l Cmiiiihill. 

» TolhiU t-. Wultir, 3 IJ. 



♦ Paffc r. Bent, 2 Met. 371 ; Collins r. Dtnni«i)ii, Vi Met. r)40; Elliott 
c. Boiiz. 9 AIu. 772. 



MISUKI'UKSKNTATION. 57 

liad IK) atliial knowledgo that it was untrue. Hut tlio judg- 
lueiit in tills case ha.s been expressly disaj»j)r()ved of by Lord 
St. Leonards,' * and cannot, though it was the decision (jf 
the liighest tribunal, be considered as founded on sound prin- 
ciples. 

If a man makes a representation in tlie honest belief tliat 
it is true, and tiieru be reasonable ground for such belief, a 
fraudulent intent will not be imputed to him, although it may 
turn out to l)e false,'' unless there be a duty cast on him to 
know the truth. ^ A misrepresentation made through honest 
mistake is not a ground for rescinding a transaction at law,* 
unless the subject-matter be dift'erent in substance from what 
it was rei>rcsented to be. In cases where a contract is sought 
to be rescinded on the ground of fraud, it is enough to show 
a fraudulent representation as to any part of that which 
induced the party to enter into the contract which he seeks 
to rescind ; but where there has been an innocent misrepresen- 
tation or misapprehension, it does not authorize a rescission, 
unless it be such as to show that there is a complete difference 
between what was represented and what was taken, so as to 
constitute a failure of consideration. For example, where a 
horse is bought under a belief that it is sound, if the purchaser 
was induced by a fraudulent representation as to the horse's 
soundness, the contract may be rescinded. If it was induced 
by an honest misrepresentation as to its soundness, though it 
may be clear that both vendor and purchaser thought they 

' Snsf. L. Prop. 6G0. ' Thorn v. Bitjland, ib., infra: 

" llaycraft i'. Creasy, 2 East, 92 ; Col- * Ormrod v. lluth, 1-t M."*fc W. 651. 

Una I'. Evans, 5 Q. B. 820; Thom v. 

Bigland, 8 Excli. 726. 



♦ A person who represents an article to be good as far ai^ lie knows, 
and yet conceals facts that would tend materially to diminish its value 
in the estimation of the purchaser, is guilty of allirmative mL-representa- 
tion. Wheelock r. Wheeler, 34 Vt. 5:33. 



as MISKKPUKSKNTATKJN. 

wore ilcalinix ahout a H)uml horse, ami were in error, yet the 
purehaser must pay the whole price, unless there was a 
warranty ; and even if there was a warranty, he eannot return 
the horse an<l claim hack the whoU' of" the jirii-e, unless there 
was a condition to that etlccf in the contract. The principle 
is well ilhistrated hy the civil law as stated in the Diujest.* 
There, after laying down the general rule that where the 
parties are not at one as to the euhject of the contract there is 
no a<:reeiiient, ami that tliis aj>j)lies where the jiarties have 
misapprehended each other as to the cot'j)U8, as where an 
ahsent slave was sold, and the buyer thoufjht he was huyinij 
Pamphilus, and the vendor thought he was selling Stichus ; 
and pronouncing the judgment that in such a case there was 
no bargain because there was ( rror in corjxyir, tlii' franiers of 
the Digest meet the point thus : " Lule quceritur si in ipso 
corpore non erretur sed in suhstantia error sit id pitta si 
a<^etu77i pro vino veneat^ aes pro miro, vel (jiiid aliud arfjetito 
simile ; an emptio et venditio sit j " and the answers given by 
the great jurists quoted are to the effect that if there be a 
misapprehension as to the substance of the thing, there is no 
contract ; but if it be only a diftercnce in some quality or 
accident, even though the misapprehension may have been the 
actuating motive to the purchaser, yet the contract remains 
binding. Paulus says, " *i aes pro auro vcneat^ non valctj 
aliter at^iue si auruin qiiidem, fuerit^ deter ius autem quam 
emptor est i in nret ; tunc enim emptio valets ^ 

The ])rinciple of our law is the same as that (»f the civil 
law. If th(! thing sold (iillrrs in substance from what the pm-- 
chaser was led by the vendor to believe he was buying, there 
is no contract. In C}omj)ertz v. Jiartlett,' and Gurney v. 
AVomersley,* a man who honestly sold what he thought wau a 

' Lib. Ift. /)<• cnntrahenda emptione, * 2 V.. «t B. 819. 

Tit. 1. !<•-. 9. 1(1, 11. 'l i:. it li. 133. 

' K) niic'dy t*. I'ttiiaina, dc. Co., L. U. 

'1 Q. IJ. r)t>7. 



MiRni;iM;EsrATATioN. no 

1)111 witluMif recourse to liiin, was held iirvcrtliclcs, lioiunl fo 
ivtiirii the i)riL'0, on it.s turning out that tlie huppoHcd bill wjuj 
\i)'u\ under the 8tain[) laws in the one case, and was a forgery 
in the (tther.* So also where cotton was sold by sani])le, and 
the eainjtle was Ion-:; stapled coffon, but the coftou ddiso-rd 
was short stapled cotton, the cotton Mas jicid to be dill'erent in 
kind from what the purchaser had contracted to buy, and that 
Lo was entitled to reject it.^ If, on the other hand, the pur- 
cliascr receives what answers tlic description of the article 
Bold, and there is no difference in substance between the article 
delivered and the article sold, but oidy a difference in some 
quality or accident, the contract remains binding in the absence 
of a warranty, even though a misapprehension caused by the 
incorrect representation of tlie vendor may have been the 
actuating motive to the purchaser.^ In such a case the rule 
caveat emjytor will apply.* In a case, accordingly, where a 
steam-packet company issued a pros])ectus stating in effect thal^ 
they had entered into a contract with a colonial government 
for the carrying of mails between certain places, and a man 
induced by the terms of the prospectus applied for and ob- 
tained some of the shares, but the contract, not being binding 
on the colonial government, was repudiated, it was held that 
the representation did not aficct the substance of the matter, 
the applicant having actually got shares in the very companv,* 
for sliares in wliich he had applied, and the shares beino- a 
property of considerable value in the market, though perhaps 
not so valuable as they Avould have been had the statement in 
the prospectus been strictly accurate.' The difhculty in everv 
case is to determine whether the mistake or misapprehensiou/ 

' See Flight v. Booth, 1 Bin- N. C. * lb. 1 E. A- B. 850, ptr LordCamp- 

877. bell. 

* Azcmar v. Casclla, L. R. 2 C. P. ' Kennedy v. Paonraa, ifcc. Co., L. E. 

677. 2 Q. B. oso'. 

' Kennedy v. Panama, «tc. (Jo., L. R. 
2 Q. B. 687. 



r»0 MlSlirPRrSKNTATIOX, 

is as to the substance vl' llu' wlmle consideration, poinfr, as it 
were, to the root of tlie matter, or only as t<t si>nie point, oven 
tboujjli a material ])(tint, an error as to which does not atlect 
the suhstani'c of the whole consideration. There may bo mis- 
ai>i>ri'hension as to that which is a luatcrial jtart of tlu- motive 
indncinix the tninsaction, hut not so as to prcvi'iit the i-ubject- 
niatter of the transaction from liein<^ in substance what it was 
represented to be.* 

The same ]irinciples aj)i)ly in e(juity. A man who makes 
a representation wiiieh he honestly and upon reasonable 
{▼rounds believes to be tnie, or believes himself entitled to 
assert, is not, indej)en(lently of a duty cast on him to know 
the truth, bound in equity, if the representation turns out to 
be untrue, to make ^'ood what be has so represented.' " There 
is no case in ecpiity," said Lord Thurlow, in Merewether v. 
Shaw,' "where a man makinir an honest representation when 
cidled upon t(» Lcive an account of the circumstances of another, 
has been held liable in this respect to make good what be has 
80 represented." From certain dicta to be found in the re- 
ports, it may appear doubtful wliether the same jtrincijdes 
apply in ec^uity where a claim is made for the restitution of 
property acpiired through incorrect rei)resentations made by 
honest mistake. In liawlins r. AVickham,* Turner, L. J., said 
that if, upon a treaty for ]nirchase, one of the j>arties to the 
contract makes a representation materially atlect inir the sub- 
ject-matter of the contract, he cannot be allowed to retain any 
benefit which he has derived, if the re])resentation proves to 
be untrue, and that no man can be held U) what he has done 
under circumstances which have been i'noneou.->ly represented 
to him by the other party tu the transaction, however inno- 



' Kennedy v. Vaaaiiin, ikc. (,'.<>, L. h. Aiii^li'- »•. Mcillyiott, '.< V«h. *J1 ; Evnns 
Q. l;. CHH. I. Wvnit, :J1 Hi'nv. '217. 

» McTfw other I'. Show. 2 (ox. l:!J . » '/Cx. i:t4. * 3 I>. 4 .1. 317. 



Misur,i'!:i:si:NTATi()N. Gl 

rcntly the represcntaliun iM:iy have hceii iiiadc!; tliat <i contra n' 
tloctrine wuiiKI striko at the root of fair dealin;;, and would 
open a door of escape in all cases of representation as to credit, 
and indeed in all other cases of false re])resentatiun. Tlic / 
words of Mr. Justice Story, in Daniel r. Min licli,' are imicli 
to the same effect. " Nothinfj," he said, " is clearer in equity 
than the doctrine that a bargain founded u])on false representa- 
tions made by the seller, althou<;]i made by innocent mistake, 
will be avoided. Mistake as well as fraud in any rej)resenta- 
tion of a fact material to tlie contract is a sutiicicnt ground to 
set it aside." ^* There is, however, good reason to doubt / 
whether on princij)le or authority, tlie equitable rule with 
respect to the restitution of property acf^uired through false 
representations can be carried so far as the words of these 
learned judges would warrant. In Eawlins y. Wickham, there 
was, in fact, a duty cast upon the party making the representa- 
tion to know tlie truth, so that it is probable that the words of 
Turner, L. J., though general in terms, should be taken with 

' 1 Storj- (Amer.), 172. (Amer.), 001 ; Dogjett r. Emerson, lb. 

^ Ilougli V. Kiclmrilson, 3 Story 733. 



* The gist of the inquiry is not whether the party making the statement 
knew it to be false, but whether the statement made as true was believed 
to be true, and, therefore, if false, deceived the party to whom it was 
made. Joyce v. Taylor, 6 G. k, J. 54 ; Lewis r. McLcmon. 10 Yerg. 206 ; 
Donclson r. Clements, ^Mci.u's I")."); Bailey v. Jordan, 32 Ala. oO ; O.-^woUl e. 
McGchec, 28 Miss. 340; :SIitchcll v. Zimmerman, 4 Tex. 75; Belknap v. 
Sealey, 2 Duer, 570; Smith r. Mitchell, 6 Geo. 458; Lockbridge r. Foster 
c«a/.,4 Scam. 5G9; Davidson r. Moss, 5 How. (Miss) 673; Shackcltbid .. 
Ilandley, 1 A. K. Marsh, 495 ; McFerran r. Taylor, 3 Cranch, 270 ; Hazard 
r. Irwin, 18 Pick. 95; Bacon r. Johnson, 7 Johns. Ch. 194; Henderson c. 
Railroad Co., 17 Tex. 560 ; Roosevelt v. Fulton, 2 Cow. 129; Smith r. 
Richards, 13 Pet. 20. An innocent misrepresentation by mistake will only 
vitiate a contract when the error between the parties is of such a nature 
and character as to destroy the consent necessary to its validity; and the 
rule is further qualified, so that it does not embrace cases to ^hich the rule 
caveat emptor applies. Brooks r. Hamilton, 15 Minn. 26. 



(i- Misi:i:ri:i:si:.NTATi()N. 

reference to tlic pnrtieular {'ircuinstanees of the case. The 
nile at law heinj; reasonaMe and fully a(le(iuate for the ])uri)(>se.s 
of justice, there is \u> reaxdi fitr extentliiiir the rule in etjuity, 
8o far as the words of 'rurnci-, L. .1., wouiil, if taken ^'enerally, 
warrant. TIuto is no irrouml fi)r conti-ndinij that the rule 
caveat emptor does not iippl.v in etjuity as well as at law,* or 
that a representation amounts any more in c(|uity to a warranty 
than it does at law. The sound doctrine would seem to he 
that the rule in e.iuity is tlie same as the rule at law. an<l that 
if, acct>rdinj;ly, a representation he lionestly and u]>nu fair and 
reasonahle grounds helievcd to he true hy the pai1y making it, 
and there he no duty east on him to know the truth, no claim 
for the restitution of ])roperty acfjuired through the rei)resenta- 
tion can he maintaintd in efjuity, although the i-i'i»resentation 
proves to he untrue,'- unless the suhject-matter he so different 
in sid)stance from what it was represented to he, as to amount 
to a failure of consideration.' 

There is a difference in suhstance amounting to a failure of 
consideration, if the jiroperty is n<»t of the same nature or 
description as it wa> represented to he in the ])articulars of 
sale,* as where leasehold or coj)yhold property is descrihed as 
freehold;' or, perha])s, where an nnder lease is sold as an 
original lease;' or as where upon the sale of an estate let at 
lease on a rack-rent, such rent is descrihed as a ground-rent;" 
or where there is a misdescription of the quantity of land in 
rcLMrd to acres heing statute acres or customary acres;' or as 

' (Jorsucli v. Crie. 29 L. J. C. P. 300. » Dnw.' v. Corp. Ves. n«8; Pnls- 

' See L«t,iro r. Crokcr, 1 Bo. A- IJo. ford >•. Uicliard.s, 17 Bcav. Ort, per Lord 

r.M; linrtKu v. Salmon, C I). .M. &. ('.. Uoiiiillv. 

'M. • .Mad.l.'y v. Booth, 2 Dop. A S. 718 , 

• .'<co Unwhind r. Norris, 1 Cox. :>'.•; Henderson v. Hudson. l.'> W. U. hco. 
LfMic r. Thomjiwn, y Hii. iJt'.S; Burt- Siv I>arlinj,'t(m r. Himiillon, Ivay. iiftO. 
lelt r. Sninion, f. \). .M. iV C. 11. ' .^(.-wart v. .Mliston. 1 M.-r. 'H\. Soc 

* See Tnylor v. .Martind.ili-. 1 V. it Bnrti.tl v. .Sdinon, f, 1>. .M. A O. 3a. 
C. C. C. C.'.N ; .Mndel«'y > . B<»»tli, '1 Dejj. ' I'rioe r. .Nortli. '1 Y. it C. f.2t5 ; Karl 
it S. 7'22; .'^tnnton v. Tattcrsjdl, 1 Sin. of IlurliMiu i'. Loijanl, 31 B<av. 612. 

di C,. WM; I'rioe f. .Motauloy, 2 D. M. 
A G. 340. 



MISRKntESENTATION'. C"* 

where a lionse compoHod extonially ]):irtly of l)riclc, and partly 
of timber, ami lath and jilastcr, is (h-x-rihcd as a l)rick-])uill 
house.* 

So, also, there is a diirci-cncc, in suhstancu amount iii;^ to a 
failure of consideration, if tluTc Ih- niisrei)resentati<»n uj.i,ii 
a ]>oint material to the (hu' enjoyment of the jtroperty; as 
where a vendor describes hind as situated within one mile of 
a particular town, when it is, in fact, several miles distant 
therefrom;^ or where, upon the sale of a lease of a house or 
shop, the particulars merely stated that the lease contained a 
restriction against certain sjiecified trades being carried on 
upon the premises, whereas, in fact, several other trades were 
forbidden;^ or where, upon the sale of a piece of land de- 
scribed as "a first-rate building plot of ground," no notice 
was taken of a right of way passing over it,* or of an under- 
ground watercourse mIucIi third pai-ties had liberty to open, 
cleanse, and repair, making satisfaction for damage tlierebv 
occasioned;' or as where a house described to be situated 
in a fashionable street, was not actually in that street, but 
merely communicated Asith it l)y a passage.' 

So, also, there is a difference in sul)Stance amounting to a 
failure of consideration, where the property, as described, is 
not identical with that intended to be sold;' or where a mate- 
rial part of the property described has no existence, or cannot 
be found;' or where no title can be shown to it, as where 
upon the sale of a leasehold house and small yard adjoining, 
the yard was not included in the lease, but was held from year 

' Powell r. Doubble, Sug. V. & ?. 29 Sec Gibson v. D'Este, 2 T. <t C. C. C. 

Dart, V. <fc P. 90. 642. 

' Duke ulNorlolk v. Wnrtliy, 1 Camp. * Sbacklcton v. Sutcliffe, 1 Deg. & i>. 

o'M; I'ulst'oicl ('. Richards, ITBeav. 96. 609. 

per Loril Iloinillv. " Stanton v. Taftersall, 1 Sm. <t G. 

' Fli-ht I'. Kuotli, 1 Bing. N. C. 370. 529; comp, White i-. BrnJ.-liaw, 10 

See A'igiioiles v. Brown, 12 Ir. Eq. 194, Jur. T3S. See I>art, V. <t 1". ss, 89. 

19tt. ' Leach v. Miillctt, 3 V. ,k P. 11.5. 

* Dykes v. Bloke, 4 Biug. N. C, 463. " Robinson v. Musirrove. 2 Moo. <k 1^ 

93. 



G4 Misui.riu:si:NTATi« )N. 

to year at a separate rent;' or whore land was ilescribt'd in 
the i»artlculars of sak^ as held under a lease that would expire 
on a certain day, hut it turiu'd out that the tenant of i)art of 
the land was entitled under an e<iuitahli' article \o a reversion- 
arv term for four lives;' or wlu-re an annuity was pninted, to 
be calcidated on a certain footinir by the a.<,'ent of the ^^^rantee, 
and the calculation proved very inaccurate ; ' or where a niau 
ai;reed to ])urchasc a share in a ]Kirtnershii> businesss, on the 
footiuir of a balance-sheet prepared by an accnuiitMnt employed 
bv the vendor, which turned ont t(t be very iiiaccui-ate in certain 
particulars;* or where there was a material variance between 
the prospectus of a company, on the basis of which a man 
took shares in the concern, and the memorandum of association 
bv which, it was governed;' or where a man was released 
from an obliiraticuj, in which he was bound, on a representa- 
tion that a certain security deposited with the creditor (which 
proved to be an imaginary one) was a good security." 

So, also, it may be laid down, as a general rule, that there 
is a ditlerencc in substance amounting to a failure of consider- 
ation, if the misrepresentation or misdescription is of such a 
nature that the amount of compensation cannot be estinuited;' 
as where on the sale of a reversion expectant on the decease of 
A in case he should have no children, his age was described 
as sixty-six, instead of sixty-four;^ or as where on the sale of 
a wood, the particulars erroneously stated that the average size 
of the timber api>roached fifty feet, the nnm])or of trees not 



• DobcH f. Hutchinson, :< A. «k A. ' Sl.ip's ('asc. 2 D. .!. .t S. .VU; 
ar.5 Sec Kniit<lil.iill i-. (Irut-ber, 1 Stowiirfs Cum; L. U. 1 Cli. A|>p. n86 ; 
Miuid. \:>:i; MCullotk v. Gn-^ory, 1 K. l,u\vri-nn''.s C'ns.'. 2. iV.. 4'J5 ; Hallows v. 
J, J 2H(\ I'Vriiic. L. U. ;J Kn. !>'M. 

'Linciinn v. O.ttcr, 7 Ir. Eq. 177. ' Sdiolfic-ld v. IVnipU-r. t 1». A .1 

See CoUitT '•. Jt-nkiin, Yoii. 2'J8; Su;j. 4".». 

y ^ |. no-l, ' ^ec Mmlt'loy v. l!(x.lli, 2 Do;;, .t S 

' Carpmtt"! r. Towis, 10 IJenv. 44. 722. 

* tlnrlc» worth v. JciininirH. 34 lioav. ' Shi-rxvorxl »-. Rol.b.n*. Mu.>. <L .M 
9(5 194. tM'O 8 Cl. ± F. 7V2. 



MISRErRKS'ENTATION. (m 

being stated ;* or as where the particidars stated the premises to 
ho in the joint occupation of A & V> as lessees, when in fact 
A was only assignee of tlie lease, and J> was a mere joint 
occupier ; ^ or as where the right to coal under the estate was 
shnwii til I)c ill other parties, and no means existed of deter- 
mining its vahie.^ 

Tiie presence of the words "more or less" in a contract 
for the sale of a deed of conveyance of land after a statement 
of the quantity of acres comprised therein does not imj)ort a 
special engagement that tlic purchaser takes the risk of the 
quantity. The words must he taken merely to cover a reason- 
able excess or deficiency. If it turn out that the quantity falls 
considerably short of what it was represented to be, the court 
will relieve the purchaser from payment for tlie deficiency; 
but a slight variation does not afford a ground for relief.*- 

' Lord Brooke v. Ilouiulthwaite, 5 v. Winclicster, 1 V. tt B. 375 ; Port- 

Ila. 1><.)8. man v. Mill, 2 Ilii.«s. ',10, Su;^. V. i 1'. 

* Kid£:way >•. Gray, 1 Mac. <fe G. 109. 321. See Cliarlesworth )•. Jenninn:8, 34 
See (Jrisscll v. Peto, 2 Sin. <fe G. 30. Beav. 9t5 ; Davis v. Shepherd, L. li. 1 

' Sniithson >'. Pouell. 20 L. T. 105. Cb, App. 410. 

* lliU V. Bulkley, 17 Ves. 398 ; Wiuch 



* Pollock r. Wilson, 3 Dana, 25 ; Quesnel r. Woodlief, 2 Hen. <k Munf. 
173; S. C. 6 Call. 218; Kcad v. Cramer, 1 Green, Cli. 277; Belknap r. 
Sealey, 14 N. Y. 143 ; Smith r. Fly, 24 Tex. 345 ; Harrell v. Hill, 10 Ark. 
102 ; Harrisou v. Talbot, 2 Dana, 258; Bailey v. Snyder, 13 S. & R. 1«0 ; 
Thomas v. Perry, 1 Pet. C. C. 49 ; Noble v. Googins, 99 ^lass. 231 ; Tarbcll 
r. Bowman, 103 Mass. 341. 

Where land is sold in gross, for a sum certain, upon a statement of the 
number of acres, quantity must be regarded as a material consideration 
with the vendee. Marbury v. Stonestreet, 1 3Id, 147. 

The use of the words " more or less," does not preclude an inquiry 
into a fraud that may have been committed by either party to a contract. 
M'Coun r. Ddaney, 3 Bibh. 4(3 ; IlarrcU c. Hill, I'J Ark. 102. 

The words " more or less," import that quantity did not enter into the 
essence of the contract, and, in the absence of fraud, neither party can 
claim relief cither for a deficiency or a surplus. Tyson v. Hardcsty 29 Md. 
305 ; Slotbower v. Gordon, 23 Md. 1 ; Hall v. Mayhew, 15 Md. 551 ; Hart r. 
StuU, 3 Md. Ch. 26 ; 8. C. 9 Gill. 451; McCrea r. Leonstreth, 17 Pcnu. 
316 ; Marvin r. Bennett, 8 Pi'^ge, 312 ; S. C. 26 Wend. 169 ; Young o. 



66 MlSKErUDSE^TATloN. 

Nor will tlio court intorfort', altliou^li the dcticiency bo con- 
pideraltli*, if tlu' risk as to the <]uantity constituted one of tlio 
cleiiuMits of the ni^reenieiit, or if the sale was of a thini^ in 

(."niiix. "J Hilih. '.'T'J ; W r:iV(T r. Cartrr, 10 L-'iLrli, :tT ; ('Iciivclatul r. Kogers, 
1 A. K. Marsh, 19:!; Williford r. Galbraith. G Watts, 117; IVrkins r. 
"NVcbsIrr, 2 N. II. -ST ; Wicker r, Crcas, 1 Iri-il. Ki]. 351 ; Podi-us r. Owens, 
Rice's Eq. 55; Ketchuin r. Sloat, 20 Ohio, 453; Chipman r. Brijrgs, 8 Cul. 
70 ; Powell r. Clark, 5 Mass. 355. 

The worils " more or less," or other e(iuivaleiit words, should lie con- 
strued to (lualify representations of quantity in such a manner that, if 
made in jjood faith, neither ])arty should be entitled to any relief on 
account of deficiency or surplus. Stcbbins v. Eddy, 4 Mason, 414 ; Jonca 
c. Plater, 2 Gill. 128. 

A parol contract of sale, at a certain price per acre, is so far varied and 
modified by a subsequent accejjtance of a deed with the words " more or 
less," that the number of acres does not fonn the iiasis of the ultimate 
conveyance, but the land is purchaseil \i\wn an assumed estimate, and at a 
gross sum. Smitli v. Evans, 6 Binn. 182; Stcbbins v. Eddy, 4 Mason, 414. 

Far too much sij^iificancc has been sometimes allowed to the.se and 
similar words. Their primary use is to show that all the land embraced 
within the dcscrijjtion, is intended to pass, and in that sense they 
are often important in the construction of an instrument. They may be 
decisive upon the question of how much consideration is to be paid, or of 
mere compensation where actual mistake does not appear. And where 
misrepresentation ami mistake are claimed, they certainly <ju:ilify the state- 
ment of quantity, which the instrument otlierwise imp)rts. A deed which 
describes the land, and states the number of acres, altiiou'rh with the 
words " more or less," clearly imports t!iat there is not a j,'^;!! tleficicncy 
or excess. If the deficiency is one half, the instrument carries, on its face, 
a pross misrei)resentation. Such words do not import that there is a 
special enfrai^cment that tlie purchaser shall take the ri.sk of the (piantity. 
1 heir j)resence in a contract or deed may render it more dillicult to prove 
such a mistake as will justify the interference of eciuity, but they are not 
tHjuivalent to a stipulation that the mistake, Avhen ascertained, shall not 
be a pround for relief Belknap r. Sealey, 14 N. Y. 143. 

The deficiency mu.st be such as will naturally rai.se the presumption of 
fraud, imposition, or mistake in the very essence of the contract. Stcbbins 
r. Eddy, 4 Mass. 414. 

When tlie metes ami boujids are pointed out, the purchaser takes the 
risk of the quantity, (iranlland r. Wri;,dit, 2 .Munf. 17t>; Dalton ». Ru.«»t, 
22 Tex. 133. 

"When the deficiency is considerable, the contract may be set aside for 
misn presentation, ulthouKh the sale is in gross. Pringlc r. Samuel, 1 
I.itt. 4:5; Kent r. Carcaud, 17 Md. 'J'.U. 



MISIIEPRKSKNTATION. 07 

(rrosA aii<l not l)y adincasurcimiit,' or if llicre was a 8])ccial 
utipiilatioii that tho (quantities shall hu taken as stated.' 

Thon^h a i)arty making a re])resuntation may at the limo 
believe it to 1)C true, and liavc made it innocently, yet if after 
discoveriiii; that it was unlriie he sutlers the of her party ti.> 
eontiniic in ei-ror, and to act on the belief that no mistake has 
been made, this, from the time of tlie discovery, becomes, in 
the contemplation of a court of equity, a fraudulent misrej)re- 
sentation, even thougli not so originally.' If, moreover, a man 
makes a representation l)y which he induces another to take a 
particular course, and the circumstances are afterwards altered 
to the knowledge of the party who made the representation, 
but not to the knowledge of the party to whom the represent- 
ation was made, and are so altered that the alteration may 
affect the course of conduct which may be pursued l>y the 
party to whom the representation was made, it is the duty of 
the party M'ho has made the representation to communicate to 
the party to Mdiom he made it, the alteration of those circum- 
stances. The ])arty to whom the representation has been 
made, will not be held bound in e(piity, unless such a com- 
munication has been made.* 

In considering whether a man has reasonable grounds for 
believing a representation to be true, the position in which he 
is placed, and the sources from which he has drawn his 
information, must be taken into consideration.' If a man be 
asked to give an account as to the fortune or circumstances of 
another, statements appearing in wills, deeds, marriage settle- 
ments, &c., are reasonable sources of information. He cannot 



* Anon., 2 Freem. 107 ; Twyford v. ^ See Sug:. V. «fe P. .324, 327; Cordingley 
Wnrciip, Find), 310; Baxendale v, ' r. Cheeseborouirli, 3 GifT. SOil. 

Scale, 10 IJeuv. 001 ; Stcbbins )•. Eddy, ' Ueynell v. Spryc, 1 D. M. & G. G60. 

4 Mas. (Amcr.) 414 ; Marvin)'. Bennett, 700. 

26 Wend. (Aiuer.) 100; Morris Canal * Traill v. Barinir, 33 L. .T. Cli. 521. 

Co. V. ICmnictt, 9 I'ni^c ( Aiuer.) lOS. * Cullon's Trn-tee r. Johnston, 3 I <ec. 

See Lcslio v. Tonipson, I la. 20S. of Court of Session, 3J scries, p. 930. 

* NicoU V. Chambers, 1 1 C. B. 996. 



(IS AUSKKrUKSENTATlON. 

be called on if the stateincntri therein Hj)i)earini; turn out to 
be iueorreet, to make <^uod his represeiitatiuii.' A mail, how- 
ever, nuKt examine into the truth of representati(»ns made to 
him bv utlu-rs, bi't'ure imttin,:; tlu'iii f.-rwani :is tnu-, ui- a^ ot 
his own knowl((l;:i'. It' a man makes a representation in buch 
a manner as to import a knowledi^e of the facts to which the 
rejuvsentation refers, and the representation is not materially 
(jualitied by a reference to any ttthcr ])erpon as the source of 
information, hr caniKit be liranl to say, on a claim for the 
rescission of the transaction, if the rei)rescntation }>rove8 to be 
untrue, that he made the representation on the authority of 
his a^ent, and honestly believed it to be true. If a company 
give credit to, and assume {is true the reports which are made 
to them by their agents, and represent as facts the matters 
stated in those reports, and persons are induced to enter into 
contracts on the foundation of the assumption of the repre- 
sentations which have been made to them, they cannot be 
heard to say, on a claim for a ro:>cission of the transaction, if 
the representations prove to l)e untiau', that they honestly 
believed them to be true. If the company, instead of stating 
a thing as a fact, state merely that they have received reports 
from their agents, and that they have reason to believe the 
reports to be true, the case may be ditVerL-nt.^ It may bo 
material, where proceedings at law are aimed against a man 
with a view to obtain damages from him personally tor false 
representations, that he may have believed statements made to 
him by agents to be true, but it is ininuiterial where the trans- 
action is sought to be set aside.' 

A misrepresentation, however, is a fraud at law, although 
made innocently, ami with !.n hoiu'st belief in its friitli, if it 

' AinhHo r. ModlvroU. 9 Vc8. '11 , L. U. '.\ Kq. i:t8; Henderson v. Lacon, 

KvnnH .'. Wvfttt. :il "H-iiv. 1217. L. R. » K'|. '.i'-l, 

' Smith's Co-s.'. K<' llecH.; I'over Silv<T • SmilliVCiiHi', Ue Mccf^o River Silver 

Minliic Co., L. R. '^ Cli. A].].. <;iM, (Wl. Minin:: Co.. L. R. 2 Cli. A|.|.. tU5j 

616; Rom f. KbUiUs Iiivestnieiit Co., lleuderson i'. Locon, L. R. 5 llq. 201. 



"MISUKI'KI'.SIONTATION. G'J 

bo rflade by a man wlio ought in the <liiu discharge of liis duty 
to liiive known the truth, or who Im-incrly knew, and ought to 
have renienihered, the fact wliich negatives the re[)reHentation, 
and he made under such circuniKtanco.s or in sucli a way as to 
induce a reasonable man to l)elieve tliat it was true, and was 
meant to be acted on, and has been acted on by him accord- 
ingly to liis prejudice. If a duty is cast upon a man to know 
the truth, and lie makes a representation in such a way as to 
induce a reasonable man to l)elie\e that it is true, and is meant 
to be acted on, he cannot be heard to say, if the representation 
proves to be nntrue, that he lielieved it to be true, and made 
the misstatement through mistake, or ignorance, or forget- 
ful n ess. ^ 

A statement which amounts to a warranty, must be dis- 
tinguished from a statement which amounts merely to a repre- 
sentation. A representation is a statement or assertion made 
by one party to the other before or at the time of the contract 
of some matter or circumstance rebating to it.^ A representa- 
tion is not a part of the written instrument, ])ut is collateral to 
it, and entirely independent of it.^ The insertion of the 
representation in the instrument does not alter its nature. 
Though a representation is sometimes contained in a written 
instrument, it is not an integral part of the contract, and con- 
sequently the contract is not broken, though the representation 
proves to be untrue.^ In order that a statement or representa- 
tion may amount to a warranty, it must appear that it %vas 

• Burrowfs v. Lock, 10 Ves. 470; misconception, a false ropresenUition 

Mocns ('. lloywortli, 10 M. *t W. 147; respcctiDfj liis fiister's fortune to a man 

Pulsford i'. kichnrds, 17 Bcav. 95; who was about to marry her. ami did 

Ayre's Case, '25 Beav. 522; Trice v. afterwards marry her. Sec, also. Ainslie 

Macaulav. 2 D. M. <fe 0.345; Hutton v. Medlvcolt, '.) Ves. 21; Evans v. 

V. Uossiter, 7 D. M. & G. 9; Rawlins FowUr, '21 Beav. 217. 

»'. Wickham, 3 D. it J. 304 ; Slim ». ' Behn v. Burncss, 3 B. <t S. 753. 

'Voucher, 1 D. F. tt J. 523; Swan r. ' Goram r. Sweeting, 2 Wmp. Saund. 

North British Australian Co., 2 II. & 201. See Kain r. Old, 2 B. it C. 634. 

• ".183; Henderson v. Lacon, L. R. 5 /w Lord Tenterdcn ; Cornfooi (■. Fowke, 

Eq. 262 ; comp. Merewether v. Shaw, 2 6 M. «t W. 370, p>^ Lord Cranworth. 

Cox, 134, where a brother made, through * Behn v. Burness, 3 B. it S. 753. 



7D 



.MlSKr,l'Ui:Si:NTATll)N, 



iiitendi'd tc form :i suhstjintive part of tlie contract.' * A 
warranty is an express or inijilied statement of sonietliing 
whii-h the i>arty inakin<,' it undertakes shall he a suhstantivc 
part of the contract, and thou_i;h part of the eontract, yet col- 
lateral to the e.\i>ress ohject of it.* .\ rei-rescntatinii (.f iiiti'n- 
tion <loes not amount to n warranty.' h a rei)resentation or 
statement is not of the essence of the contract, there is no 
warranty.* The circumstance of a man sellinfc a i)articular 
thin<' bv its proper description is n(»t a Avarranty that the 
tiling is of that description. If the thing docs not answer the 
description, there is not a breach of warranty, but a non- 
compliance with a contract which he has engaged to fullil.' 
To constitute a warranty, it is not necessaiy that the word 
"warrant" should occur in the bargain.® Nor is it necessary 
that the statement or representation should be simultaneous 
with the close of the bargain. If it be part of the contract, it 
matters not at what period of the negotiation it was made.' 
If a statement amounts to a warranty, the party making it is 
bound by his warranty. The fact that he may liave made the 
statement in honest mistake, or that the statement may be not 
in a material matter, cannot be taken into consideration.^ 



* I?chn r. Burnoss, 3 B. <t S. 754. " Hopkins v. Tanquorny. 15 C. B. 
'Chnntor r. Ilopkin.-. 4 M. «t W. 1.^7. /.t Ji-rvis, C. J.; SUicley c. Bully, 

404. /yr Lord Abin^rcr; Stuclcy ». 1 II. A ('. 417. 

Baily. 1 H. d: C. 41.*.. /.tr Martin, B. 'Hopkins v. TnmiiuTiiy, 15 C. B. 

* ii<'nlioin r. United Cuurantec, «kc. 137. ^i^r .Krvis, C. .1. 

ABHurance Co., 7 Kx.li. 744. ' Attwood r. Small, f, ( 1. .t Tin. 232; 

* Crun'-ton ••. Marsiinl, 5 Exrh. 402; Anderson v. Fit/^craUl. 4 II. 1,. 504, 
Tavlor >■ Bullt-n. Ih 77'.i ; Vtrnedo v. per Lord Crnnwurtli ; I^annt-nnnn v. 
•NVibcr. 1 II. k N. .Ml. Wl.ito. in C B. N. S. 811; Ikhn v. 

*Cliant«r v. Hopkins. 4 M. A W. Burucss, 3 B. <t S. 754, 75'J. 
404. ]>rr Lord Ahinirt-r; .Stucli-y v. 
Baily, 1 IL A C. 41.'.. i^r .Martin, 13. 



* In ortlcr to conntitutc a wtimmty no partirular form <>f words is 
necessary. The wonl warrnnt ncccl not be n.se<L A bare r(|)r(S(ntation 
or aHBcrtion, if Hf) intentl(<l an«l uiulerslood Ly the parties, will amount to 
a warranty. But no matter liow j)Ositivc the reprc.nentation of the vendor 
may be, it will be regarded as an e.xpression of his belief or opinion, 



MISREPRESENTATION. 71 

The term "warranty" is used in two Kenses. It is eitlicr 
a condition on tlie fiiilure or non-performance of wliicli the 
other ])arty may, if he be so minded, repudiate the contract 
altogether, and so he released from jiei-foniiini,^ his jiart of it, 
or it is an independent agreement, a hi-each of \vlii( h will not 
jnstifj a repndiation of the contract, hut will oidy he a cause 
of action for compensation in damages. The question whether 
a statement, though intended to be a substantive part of the 
contract, is a condition precedent, or an independent agree- 
ment, is sometimes raised in the construction of charter-parties, 
with reference to stipulations that some future thing shall be 
done or shall happen, and has given rise to very nice distinc- 
tions. Thus a statement that a vessel is to sail, or be made 
ready to receive a cargo, on or before a given day, has been 
held to be a condition, while a stipulation that she shall sail 
with all convenient speed, or within a reasonable time, has been 
held to be only an agreement.^ If the statement be a condi- 
tion, and it be not complied M'ith, the party to whom it is 
made may, if he be so minded, repudiate the contract, pro- 
vided it has not been partially executed in his favor. If, 
indeed, he has received the whole or any substantial part of 
the consideration for the promise on his part, the warranty 
ceases to be available as a condition, and becomes a warranty 
in the narrower sense of the term, that is to say, a stipulation 
by way of agreement, for the breach of which a compensation 
may be sought in damages. Accordingly, if a specilic thing 
has been sold, with a warranty of its quality, under such 
circumstances that the property passes by the sale, the vendee 
having been thus benefited by the partial execution of the 

' Behn v. Burness, 3 B. & S. irA. 



unless it -was intciulecl and received as a stipulation. Baraett v. Stantoiii 
2 Ala. ISl ; Eudor v. Scott, 13 111. 35. 



72 :\i iskf.i'i:i:si:ntation. 

rontract, nnd l)ecomo the proprietor of the thini,' sohl, cannot 
treat the faihire of tlie warranty as a condition broken (unless 
tlierc is a s])ecial cttndition to tliat elVect in the contract), but 
must have recourse to mm action fur <huna<^cs in respect of the 
breach of warranty. I'.iit in cases where tlic thini^ sohl is not 
specific, and the projjcrty has not ]>assed by tiie tale, the 
vendee may refuse to receive the thini; ))rolVered to him in 
performance of the contract, on the <;round that it docs not 
correspond with the dcscrijttive statement, or, in other words, 
that the condition expressed in tlie contract has not been per- 
formed. Still, if he receives the thiui!; as sold, and has the 
enjoyment of it, he cannot afterwards treat the descriptive 
statement as a condition, but only as an agreement, for a 
breach tif wliich he may liriiii; an action for damages.* 

Affirmations in policies of insurance are in the nature of 
■warranties. In the case of policies of marine insurance, and 
policies against fire, a warranty is also u condition. It is an 
implied condition of the validity of the policy, that the [)arty 
proposing the insurance slinuM make a true and complete 
representation respecting the property which he seeks to 
insure. Such policies are therefore vitiated by any nniterial 
misre])resentations, even though not fraudulently made.' In 
the case of life assurances, however, it is not an implied condi- 
tion of the validity of the policy that the party proposing the 
insurance slu)uld make a true and complete representation 
respecting the life j)roposed for insurance. If there be no 
express warranty or condition on the part of the insured, a 
policy of life assurance is not vitiated by false representations, 
unless there be fraud.' li" there be a ])rovi80 in a jxdicy of 
assurance, that any untrue statements shall avt»id the ])oli('y, 

' lU-lin r. nuriifHM, :{ 15. A S. T.'t.'i. Tliornton. :J E. Jk U. KCS; Stokes »•. Cox. 

' ('nrt<T V. Uoi-lim. 3 Hurr. iVnS; 1 H. «t N. r.:{:i ; Hiiiin-riimn r. White, 

McHJiiH V. U.-yw.irth. 10 M. A W. ir.7, 1« ('. H. N. S. Mtio. 
j.er 1^T<\ W.nHl. v-in|.- ; An.lirH..ii r. ' Wliclton v. IlnnliBty, 8 E. 4 K 

KiUK<.Tuld. 4 n.' L. 481; Mlliiii v. Ti'l, in/ra. 



MiartlOPKKHKN'l ATI(»N, 



r3 



the policy is vitiated l>y any statciiiLiit I'aLsc in lacf, wlictliLT 
material or not.' 

Til order that a misrepresentation may support an action at 
law, or be of any avail whatever as a ground fur relief in 
equity, it is essential that it should lie material in its nature,^* 
and slioidd ln' a dcteruiiiiinii; irroiiiid of tht; transaction.' f 
The misrepresentation must, in the ]anii;uai,'c of the Koman 
law, be dolus dans locum contractul} There must be the 
assertion of n fact on which the person entcrin<i; into the trans- 
action relied, and in the absence of which it is reasonable to 
infer that he would not have entered into it at all,^:{;or at 
least not on the same terms.^ Both facts must concur ; there 
must be false and material representations, and the party seek- 
ing relief should have acted upon the faith and credit of such 



' Anderson v. Fitz^^crald, 4 II. L. 
481; Gazenovc *'. Hritisli Equitable 
Assurance Co., G C. B N. S. 4.37 ; 
comp. I'crrins ;■. Marine, itc. Insurance 
Co., 2 El. <fe El. :il7. 

• Jennings »>. Bron'.,diton, 5 D. 51. <t 
G. 126. fciee Geddea v. Pennington, 5 
Dow. 159. 

' Merewethcr v. Slinw, 2 Cox, 131; 
Do Manneville v. Cromiiton, 1 V. k, I>. 
.354; Jameson v. Sttiii, 21 Beav. 9; 
Kobson '■. Earl of Devon. 4 Jur. N. S. 
245, 24S; Goldicutt v. Townsend, 28 
Beav. 445; Jennings v. Brou<rliton, 5 
D M. &' G. 136; Denne v. Ligiit, 8 D. 
M. & G. 774. 

* Fraud is divided bj' the civilians 
into dohi!^ (laiix lorinn contrtului and 
dolus itic'ilcns, or accidental fraud. The 
former is that wiiich has been the cause 
or determining motive of the transac- 
tion ; timt, in other words, without 
which the party defrauded wouUl uot 



have contracted. Incidental or acci 
dental fraud is that by which a man, 
otherwise intending to contract, is de- 
ceived as to some accessory or accident 
of ibc contract : for example, as to tiio 
i|uality of the object of sale or its price. 
The determination of the question as to 
the characler of the do/us rests in each 
particular case with the court. Acci- 
dental or incidental fraud is not a. 
ground for avoiding a transactfon, but 
simjily subjects the party to an action, 
for damages. Duranton, vol. X, liv. 3, 
s. 1G9 ; Toull. Dr. Civ., liv. 3, tit. 3. c. 
2, s. 5, art. 90 ; Bedarride, sur Dol. p. 
45. This distinction does not obtain in 
the common law, and id not admitted in 
equity. 

^ I'ulsford I'. Pvichards, 17 Beav. 87, 
9(5. 

" G M.. <fe W. 378, per Lord Abinger. 
See Small i-. Attwoud, You. 401. 



* Smith T. Richards, 13 Pet. 26 ; Coffee r. Newsom, 2 Kelly, 442 ; Mc- 
Donald t. Trafton, 15 Mc. 225; Cunningham v. Smith, 10 Gratt. 255; Gil- 
lette. Phelps, 12 Wis. 392; Taylor v. Fleet, 1 Barb. 479. 

t Morris Canal Co. v. Emmett, 9 Paige, 1G8 ; Winston r. Gwathmey, 8 
B. Mon. 19; Ilalls v. Thompson, 1 Smcd. t.\: Marsh, 443. 

X Daniel v. ]\Iitdiell, 1 Story, 172; Hazard v. Irviu, 18 Pick. 95; Brad- 
ley r. Bosley, 1 Barb. 125. 
G 



74 MlSKl'.I'KKSr.NTATION'. 

representations.** To say tliat statcnu'nts nrc fal!?o is one 
thint;; to wiv tliat a man was (k'ceived l>y thcni to rntrr into ji 
transaction \a another tliin;;.'t A niisn'iuvscntalion to he 
material ninst he one necessarily in^lnenein^' and inducing,' the 
transaction,":!: and allectini; and ^oing to its very essence and 
snhstance.* Mi>rii>resontations which arc of guch a natnre as, 
if trne, to adtl snhstantially to the valne of property,' or are 
calcnlated to increase sul)stantially its ai)parent valne," are 
material. A iuisrci)resentation <jjoes for nothiiii; nnless it is a 
jiroximate and immediate canse of the transaction.'' It is not 
cnoii<di that it may have remotely or indirectly contrihnted to 
the transaction or may have snpplied a motive to the other 
partv to enter into it. The representation mnst he the very 
"•ronnd on which the transaction has taken ])lace. The trans- 
action must he a necessary and not merely an indirect result of 
the representation.* /It is not liowever neces.sary that the 
representation should have hccn the sole cansc of the trans- 
action. It is enough that it may have constituted a material 

' Ilouch t'. Uichnnl.son, 3 Storj- Conybonrc, 11. L. 71 1 ; Bnrrctfs Cn.-e. 

(AnnT.). t'>00, ]>cr Story, .1. ^ 1>. ■'• »t !^- :"'• ^*^e (ItiKK-.s v. reiiiiiii;;- 

».Ic-niiin"s r. Hrouijhton, 6 D. M. <k ton. 5 Dow. 159. 
G 126. ' Riirm-rt v. IVnncll. 2 II. L. 497, 531 ; 

• Ji> ll'i'M' Uivcr Silver Mining Co.; Nio.irs Cnsc, :i 1). A- .1. HS7, V.W; Unr- 
Smith's CiiM', L. U.'iCli. Ajip. Oil. ry c. Crosskcy, '2 J. it 11. 1 ; Ni-w BniMi»- 

• Hall"\vrt !•. rcrrru', L. U. :i Ktj. f>-''f>. wick ikc. Uailwuy (o. c Conybi-aro. 9 

• I'riic V. XIacaiilny. 2 D. M. & < J. :M I ; H. L. 711. Sec Atwood v. Simill, CI. 
Jt.-nnin;,'s v. Bruuglitxiii, 5 D. M. ct (!. «t Fi". 2:{2, -117; .lamcson r. Sti'in. 21 
12fi " Mc'iiv. .I ; Uohson i'. Karl of Devon. 4 

•Small r. Attwood. You. ICl ; Dim- .lur N. S. 2J.'i; Whi-clton r. Hanlisty. 

mock V. Ilailctt, L. K. 2 ("ii. A].]). 21. 8 K. A B. 2:!2 ; Smith ,: Kay, 7 II. L. 

'Barry r. CroHskiy, 2 J. <k H. 1; 750,776. 
New Driinswick, Ac' Koilwoy Co. v. 



* McDonsiM r. Trnllon, l.l Mf. 22."). 

The reprcHcntationM netil not he tlic hoIc induceincnt. It is sufTiciont 
if the jmrty w<»ul(l not have entiTeil into the contract if the false reprcscD- 
titiona luiil not l>c»n made. Shaw v. Stine, 8 Hosw. 157. 

t Clark r. Kverhurt, iVi Penn. IMT; Unyce r. Watsoji. 20 Geo. 517. 

\ Morgan r. Snapp, 7 Ind. 537; Hill r. IJush, lU Ark. 522; Ycatca c. 
Prior, C Eng. 58. 



jr I SH i: I 'RESENT ATION. 7.-) 

imlncciiiciit. If ;iny one of sevi-ral sl;itciiiciil>, all in lli,ir 
iiatiirc III. ire or less capal)!!' of Icadin;^'- the jiartv to wliom fli(\ 
arc addrt'ssc'd to adopt a particular line of conduct, be untrue, 
tho wliolo transaction is considered as having' been fraudulently 
obtained, for it is iini>nssil)le to say tbat tlic untrue statement 
may n<»t liave l)i'en {.n-ciscly that wliich tiiriicij the scale in tlie 
mind of tlie party to wliom it was addressed.' A man wlio 
has made a false representation in resi)cct of a material matter 
must, in order to be able to rely on the defence that the trans- 
action was not entered into on the faith of the representation. 
bo able to prove to demonstration that it was not relied on.- 
It is not enou^irh for him to say that there were other represen- 
tations by which the transaction may have been induced ;' nor 
can he be heard to say what the other party M'ould have done, 
had no misrepresentation been made/ 

A misrepresentation to be of any avail whatever must 
enure to the date of the transaction in (juestion.^ If a man 
to whom a representation has been made, knows at the time, 
or discovers before entering into a transaction, that the repre- 
Bentation is false,^- or resorts to other means of knowled'-'e 
open to him, and chooses to judge for himself in the matter, 
he cannot avail himself of the fact that there has been mis- 
representation, or say that he has acted on the fiiith of the 
representation.' f Where, accordingly, an iron company had 

' Rcynflli'. Sprye, 1 D. M. & O. 708; Smith v. Kay, 1 II. L. 750, 770; TraiU 

Jennings v. Broughton, 5 D. M. <t G. i'. Barinsr, ">'-i L. J. C"li. 521, 527.' 
126; Clarke r. Dickson, 6 0. B. X. S. ' Irvine r. Kirkpatrick,' 7 Bell Sc 

453; Smith v. Kay, 7 II. L. 750, 7'75. Ap. 186. ' ' 

" Rawlins i-. Wickhani.3 D. <L' J. S04 ; • lb. ; Vigers r. Pike, 8 CI <fc Fin 

NicoU's Case, \h. 337; Smith v. Kay, 7 050; Lord Brooke r. Roundthwaitc 6 

II. L. 750 775; Kisch v. Central Yen- Ha. 2t»8, 306; Nelson v. Stocker 4'd 

ezuela Railway Co. 3 D. J. <t S. 122. jfc J. 465. 

• Nicoll's case, 3 D. <fe J. 387, 430. •> Lvsney v. Selby, 2 Lord Raymond 

* ReyncU I. Sprye, 1 D. M. d: G. 600 ; 1118, 1120; Pike v. Vi"-ers, '/Dr A 



* Anderson t'. Buniett, 5 How. CMiss.) IGo; Hughes r. Sloan 2 .Ark 
146. 

t Hough r. Richardson, 3 Story, 6o0; Veascy r. Doton. 3 Allen, 380.— 



7C MlSl!i:iMlKSKNTATl()N. 

sent some of tlioir <lirci'tni-s for tlir i .\|>i-('ss ]»ur)>or:o of vcn'fj- 
iiiir tlu' irjircpcntations of a man rospcctiiiir liis works, wlio 
expressed their satisfaction with tlie ]>r(>ofs jinMhu-til, it was 
held that tlic company liad, Ity choosing to judi^e for them- 
selves in the matter, precluded themselves from liein^ able 
to say that they had heen deceived liy the ri']tresentation8 of 
the vendor, and that it Mas their own fault it" tluy ha<l n()t 
availed themselves of all the knowledge, or means of knowl- 
ediTC, open to them.* So, also, where a man had, before 
purchasing shares in a mine, visited the mine and examined 
into its condition, it was held that he had not relied on repre- 
sentations made to him hy the vendor, and Mas not entitled 
t(» avoid the contract, on the ground that they were false, the 
alleged misstatements being such as he was comj)etent to 
detect.' " Cases," said Lord Langdale, in Clapham v. Shilleto,' 
''frequently occur in which, u]>on entering into contracts, 
misrepresentations made by one party have not been in any 
deirree relied on by the other. If the }>arty to Mhom the 

Wnl. 201 ; Clarke f. Mncintosli, 4 Gi(T. CI. A Fin. r.C.2, C.-iO; Kobson r. Lord 

134. Sec Farebrotlu'r r. Ciibson, 1 I). Devon. 4 .Iiir. X. S. '1\:>; Hay wood i>. 

d: J. r.02. Copo. 25 Ut-av. 14S; Ni-Imiii »•.' Stoi ki-r. 

' Attwood r. Small, i'> CI. it Fin. 4 1). tt .1. 4t'>j; New IJrun^w'uk itrc. 

232. Uailway Co. v. Conybeare, D II. L. 711, 

' Jennin^ r. r.roiie;liton, 17 Beav. 730. 
234. 5 D. M.'<fc a. I2f.. >vc Lowndes ' 7 Beav. 141). 

r. Lane, 2 Cox, 303; Vigers v. l'*»ke, 8 



The rcpn'?cntation must Imvc been lionotly confiikrt in. Ca.«ey r. Allen, 
1 A. K. Mar.-h, 4(jr,. 

A jH-rson is not Imund by a reprcsenliition so dearly and obviou.^ly 
differing froii; tlie fact, that every person liavinjx the use of tiie enniinon 
organs of .'4en«it ion must know it to be erroneous; for reliance i.-* to be 
placed upon the knowledge which these offer, rather tlian upon the state- 
ment.4 of any one. Irving r. Thomas, 18 Me. 41H. 

If the ini'<rei>n".ent:ition r«'n<hT» the examination iefis jk rfert and full, 
or makes the statements of the jtarly to be in part conllile«l in. as in respect 
to details cxt<n<iing per^onal impiiry only to general matters and general 
appearanres, the fraud vitiates tlie whole contract. >hisoa v. Crosby, 1 
Wood & Min. 342; Smith r. Halnock, 2 Wood & Min. 240. 



Misrwi:rui:sKNTATi()x. 77 

representations wwr made, hiiusclt' iT-xti-fcd in llie j^-opcr 
means of vcrilicatiun hclore entoriii:; int(» the contract, it 
may a]»j)car lliat lie relied on the results of his own inves- 
tigation and iiKiuiiv, and not upon the rejjrcsentations nwide 
to liini hy the other I'nrty ;** or if tlie means of investi«^atioii 
and verification l>c at hand, and the attention of the ])ar: \ 
receivinj^ the representation be di-awn to them, the circuii:- 
stanees of the case may be such as to make it incumbent on 
a court of justice to imi)ute to liini a knowled^^e of tlie result, 
wliich, upon due iiupiiry, he oui^dit to have obtained, and 
thus tlie notion of reliance on the i-epi-esentation made to liim 
may be excluded.^ f A^ain, when we are endeavorin<^ to 
ascertain what ivliance lias been placed on representations, 
we liiust consider them with reference to the subject-matter, 

' See Lowndes v. Lane. 2 Cox, 3()3 ; D. M. <t G. 1 20 ; Farebrotlier v. Gibs m, 

Pickering c. Dowsoii, 4 Taunt. 779; 1 D. tfc J. tii)2 ; ("lark v. Macintosh. 4 

Altwood |.. Small, (i CI. & Fin. 2:J2 ; Gitf. 14:{ ; New Brunswick etc. Kailwav 

Jennings v. Broughton, 17 Beav. 234, 5 Co. v. Conybeare, 9 H. L. 711 ; lloui:li 

I). M. it G. 120; Haywood r. Cope, 25 v. Richaril.-on, 3 Story (Ainer.). 091 ; 

Beav. 140; Houi;h t: ltiehard>on, 3 Doggctt i. Kiner.^on, »7>. 733 ; Mason u. 

Story (Anier.) O'.H ; Doggttt c Knier- Crosby, 1 Wood tt M. (Aii.er.) 342; 

son, (6. 73:5 ; Mason v. Crosby, 1 Wood. Johnson >'. Tuber, Seld. ( Anier.) 319; 

<fc M. (Anier.) 312. (Jordon v. rarmelec, 2 Allen (Aincr.) 

" Sec Lowndes v. Lane, 2 Cox, 303 ; 214. 
Jennings v. Broughton, 17 Beav. 234, 5 



* Ualls v. Thompson, 1 Smed. & Mar. 443 ; Perkins v. Rice, C Litt 
218. 

t There is no misrepresentation, if the fact is one of \vliicli every mm 
is equally capable of judging for himself. Bell r. Heiulei-son, GIIuw. 
(Miss.) 311 ; Mississippi Union Bank v. "Wilkinson, 3 Smed. & Mar. 78. 

A purchaser is bound to exercise ordinary prudence and discretion, 
and if the means of knowledge are within his power, and he neglects to 
make the proper inquiry, he loses his remedy against the vendor for any 
fraudulent representation the latter may make. Bell r. Byer.son, 11 Iowa, 
233 ; Schermerhorn c. George, 13 Abb. Pr. 31.5 ; "White v. Seaver, 25 Barb. 
235 ; Burton i\ "Willers, Litt. 32. 

"Where a party is, from the circumstances, induced to rely upon the 
representations of the vendor, he may rescind the contract, althougli the 
means of obtaining information were open to Liua. Mattock c. Todd, 19 
Ind. 130. 



78 



Misur.rui:si;NTATiON. 



.u\(l tlio ri'lativc kiiowli'd^o of the paitits. If the Piibjcct is 
cajtaltli' «if hriii'^ accurati'ly known, and oiu' jiarty is, or is 
supposed tt) 1)0, pos.-i'ssi'd of accurate knowled^i-, and tiic 
other is cntirelv iixtiorant, or lias not etjual means of knowi 
ed^'e, and a contract i> eiitcicd into, after representiitions 
made by the party who knows, or is supposed to know, 
without any means of vi-ritication hein;^ resorted to by the 
other, it may well enough he pie.-umed that the ii^norant 
man relietl on tlie statements made to him by him who was 
supposed to be betti-r informed;'''' l>ut if the subject is in 
its nature uncertain, if all that is known is matter of infer- 
ence from somethinir else, and if the ]»arties nud<in:; and 
receiving; representations on the subject liave ei^ual knowledge 
and means of acquiring knowledge, it is not easy to presume 
that the representations made by the one wouhl have much, or 
any, influence on the other." *t 

The allegation of misrepresentation may be ellectually met 
by proof that the ]>arty complaining was well aware and 
cognizant of the real facts of the case, but the proof of 



' Sic Ly-noy v. Silliy, 2 Lord ' Sci- LowruU-s v. Luno, 2 Cox, 3fi3 ; 

Raym. 1118-iriO; Lowndes v. Lane, ILirris c. Kombli-, 1 Sim, 111, 6 BUrIi. 

2 C'ox. 3rt:i ; Edwards f. M'Clony, 2 Sw. 7:>'>; Attwood »•. Siiinll, G CI. «t Fin. 

289; ViTiion r. Keys, 12 East" 037. 4 2:i2; Knight v. Marjurilmiiks. 2 II. »t 

Taunt. -INK; Martin r. Cotter, 3 J. A- L. T\v. ;!ir. ; Jenniii;;-! v. lWim<^hU)t\, 17 

.'iii«; Keynell •'. Sprye, 1 I). M. »t (i. r>eav. 23 J, .M>. M. it (;. 12r. ; Haywood 

COO; I'rice t'. Matauliiy, 2 1). M. it (i. r. Cope, 2.'i Ik'av. 11<>; Clarke r. Nlatin- 

:;3".t; Ilawlins v. Wickhain, 3 I), it .1. to.sli, 4 (i'\ff. 113; National Exi-lian^jo 

3ii4 ; Stran^ways v. Hisdiop. 2'.t L. T. Co. r. I)rew, 23 Dec. of Ct. of Se.'48ion. 

120; Hi^'tjinH v'. Saniels, 2 J. <t II. 4f.H; 2d i^eriea, p. 1 ; llonj;h i'. Kieliard.ton, 3 

Wanier »•. Daniels, 1 Wood. A M. Story (Ainer.) C.'.tl ; Jolinson r. Tuber, t". 

(.Vnier. ) t><); Maiion «•. CroHby, 2 Wood. Seld. (Aiuer.) 3l'J. 
ifc M. (Amer.)3:j3. 



♦ Picarcl r. McCdrmick, 11 .Midi. CS; Harvey r. Smith. 17 Ind. 272 ; 
Nowlan r. Cain, 11 Allen. 'JOl ; Heard /•. Cainplxll, 2 A. K. Mar.'^h, 125 ; 
Nuni.-wtt r. Wathun, 2 B. Mon 211 ; Spciice r. AVhilakor, U Port. 2i}7. 

t IlallH r. TliompwHi. 1 Smed. A: Mar. 41:5; Strong r. rctors, 2 Iloot. 
OH; Olnast'ock r. Minor, 11 Mo. 055 ; Fallon r. Hood, :(4 Petin. :{05 ; Farrar 
r. Alston, 1 Dcv. 09; Saunders r. Hutterman, 2 Ired. :{2 ; Moore r. Turbc- 
villc, 2 IJil>l). 002. 



MISUKrilKSKNTATION. 70 

kiKAvli'dijc must l)u clt-ar ami cniicliisivc. A iii.ui wlio, hy 
luisivjiivsentatiou or cunccaliiiunt, lias iiiislcd aiKitlit-r, eaniKjt 
lie lieard to my tliat he might luive known the trntli I»y pnjj)er 
iiKjiiiiy ; Itut jimst, in order to he al)lc to rely on the defence 
that 111' kiu'W tlif representation to Ik; nntruf, he ahlu t(^ estab- 
lish the tart upon iiicontcstihle evidence, and heyoiid the 
possibility of a doubt.' ••■ 

If the subject-matter is not property in this country, where 
probably independent inquiry would, be made and inspection 
might take })lace, but i)roperty at such a distance that any per- 
son purchasing it is obliged to rely on the statement made with 
respect to it, the argument is the stronger that reliance has 
been placed on the representations.^ f If a definite or particu- 
lar statement be made as to the contents of property, and the 
statement be untrue, it is not enough that the party to whom 
the representation was made may have been acquainted with 

' Dyer V. ITarsfftve. 10 Ves. 505 ; Venezuela Railway Co. 3 D. J. A- S. 

Unrris I'. Kuiiiblc, T) Hli^li, 7^.0; Vipjers 122; Central Railway of Venezuela Co. 

V. Pike, 8 CI. <k. Fin. 5()2, 65(1; Wilson t'. Kisch, L. R. 2 App. Ca. 114; Law- 

V. yiiort, 6 Ha. 30(5, 375 ; Shackleton v. rence's Case, L. R. 2 Cli. App. 422. See 

Sutclirte, 1 Deg. <fe S. C0'.» ; Martin v. Nelson >: Stocker. 4 D. <k J. 405. 
Cotter, 3 J. «t L. i'M',, 506; Rcyntll )'. ^ Sinitli's Case; He Reese River Sil- 

Spryc. 8 lla. 257; Price i;. Maeaulav, ver Mining Co., L. R. 2 Ch. App. 014. 
2 D. M. «fe Q. 339 ; Kisch v. Central 



* Boycc V. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210 ; Young v. Harris, 2 Ala. 108 ; Clapton 
I. Cogart, 3 Smcd. & Mar. 363 ; Conncrsville v. Wadleigh, 7 Blackf. 102 ; 
Anilerson v. Burnett, 5 IIow. (Miss.) ICo. 

The rule that there is no reliance where the means of iiiforuiation are 
iqually open to botli parties, does not apply to nii.srei)resentaiions wliere- 
by a surety obtains his release from a bond. Hoitt v. llolcomb, 32 N. H. 
18">. 

t Wherever a sale is made of property not present but at a remote dis- 
tance, ■which the vendor knows the purchaser has never seen, but \vhich 
lie buys upon the representation of the vendor, relying on its truth, then 
I lie representation in effect amounts to a warranty; at least that the vendor 
is boimd to make good the representation. Smith c. Richards, 13 Pet. 20 ; 
Babcock r. Case, 01 Penn. 427; Spalding r. Hedges, 2 Bair, 240; ^lincr r. 
Medbury, G Wis. 295; Bean r. llerrick, 12 '^Ic. 2G2; Camp r. Camp, 2 
Ala. 032. 



80 .MLsKi:rKi:srM' \ tion. 

tho nroi»crty. A very intiiuato kimukil:;*.' with the juvmises 
will nut lUH'ossnrily imply knowlotjjri' ut their i-x icl cuntoiitfj, 
whilf the pijrticuhirity of the stateiiieiit will naturally eonvey 
the notion of exact aiiiiua>urc'iiu'iit.' The l;n'l that lie had the 
nieaU'^ ot" kiiowiiii; or ol" olilaiiiiiii; iiiloniiatioii uf the truth 
whieh he tlid not use ii> ni)t sullicient.' It i- not indeed enou^^h 
tliat he may have heen \vantin<^ in eaufion. A man who Ijjis 
made false representations, hy which he has indnccl another to 
enter into a transaction, cannot tui-u round ou the pi'rs<in whom 
he liJis deiranded and say that he oui,dit to have heen more 
jirudent and ouL^ht not to have eoncluded tlu rejiresentation.s 
to he true in the sense which the lauijuai^e used in the pros- 
jiectus naturally and fairly imports.' Nor is it enou<;h that 
there may oe circumstances in the case which, in the al)sonce 
of the representation, miijht have heen sutHeicnt to jmt him 
on in(piirv. The doetrino of notice has no application where a 
(listiuct representation has heen made. A man to whom a 
])artienlar and distinct representation has been made is entitled 
to rely on the representation and iienl n(»t make any further 
incpiiry, although there are circumstances in the case from 
which an inference inconsistent with the representation might 
Lc drawn,* lie is not hound to iufpiirc uidess something has 
happened to excite susj^icion,^ or unh'ss there is something in 
the ease or in the terms of the rc[>rese'.itation to jmt him on 
iufpiiry.'' The party who has made the representation cannot 



' Hill »'. I'iul;K-v. 17 Vo.H. 'i'JA. See diilo »•. Mncf, 2 Sm. A- <;. •J.'.'.. '23(>, 5 D. 

King t: WilH.iii. C. Hcnv. \1\. M. d: (J. KCJ; Cox r. Mi-Llltlon. 2 Drew. 

* LyHnc'v '•• S«'lbv, '- Lord Knym. lio'.t; (Jrosvctior v. •oi-fii. '» Jiir. N. S. 
11ls."n'i<>; Uolxll .'" Stcvi-iiH. a B. «t C. 117; Kiiwlins r. Wicklinm. :t 1>. A .). 
fiij:{; HawliiiH v. Wk-kliain, :s D. & J. :51s ; Kisch r. (Vnlr.il Viiicziu-lii Unll- 
3r.». way ('<)..{ 1>. .1. »t S. p.".;; Smith v. 

* Now IlnniHwick Ac Itailwiiy Co. v. lUosc liivir Silver Mieiiitg Co., L. R. 2 
Miiir-<Ti<li,'<', 1 Dr. A Sm. :ih2. E<i 'Jt',1. 

MJrniit V. .Miiiit. C«ni|i. 17U; Van i'. ' Kawliiix f. Wicklinm. .'I D. «k J. 304. 

Cori><', ;J .M. it K. 2ti'.»; iri;;hl »•. Hartoii, Si-i- I'linbrollHT r. (olciuii, 1 D. & J. 

i7». 2«2; Dolx'U r. St.-vi'iin, .'{ H. A C. Otri. 

«2S; I'o|.e r. Garlund, 4 Y. A C. :«1M ; * Kent »•. Fre«'li<.i.l I.nn.l and Brick 

Wilaon V. Short, •', Ho. .'UK'., 377 ; Dryi*- luakin;^ Co., L. U. I licj. .'i'.'H. 



MISUKI'RKSKNTATION. 81 

be allowed fo s.iv that lie fold him wlicrc fiii-tlit-i- Iiifoniiatiori 
was to bu ;;ot, uv rucumineudcd him to take advic-o, and even 
])iit into his hands tlic means of discoveriii"^ the truth. How- 
ever ne^dii::ent the party may liave been to wliom the incorrect 
statement lias been mailc, vet lliat is a matter airurdin;^; no 
Ljnnmd of defence to tlie otlier. No man can comj)lain tliat 
another lias relied too implicitly on the truth of what he liim-' 
self stated.' If a vendor lias stated in his proposals the value; 
of the ])ro])erty, he cannot, except under special circumstances, 
ctimplaiii that the ]>urchaser has taken the value of the ]>r(>p- 
erty to be such as he represented it to be.' The effect of what 
would be otherwise notice may be destroy(;d not only by actual 
misrepresentation but by anythinj^ calculated to deceive or 
even to hill suspicion upon a particular point.^ - A vendor of 
property on lease, for instance, is not justified in paradin^j upon 
bis particulars of sale the existence ut' covenants Ijcneficial {o 
the estate which he knows or has good reason to believe can 
not be enforced.-* 

The maxim caveat emptor does not ap])ly wbei-e there is a 
positive misrepresentation, essentially material to the subject 
in question, provided proper diligence be used by the pur- 
chaser in thv3 course of the transaction. ^ The rule at least of 
caveat emptor^ where there is misrepresentation, if applicable 

' RcyncU »'. Sprvo, 1 D. M. <t G. 6fiO, Darlington v. Hamilton, Kay, 650; 

710; Ivinvliiis )'. VVickham, :? I), tfc J. Smith )'. Ilani-^on, 2t> L. J. Cli. 412; 

S18; Smitlw. Kccse River Silver Min- Slicanl c. ViMiablcs, :iij L. J. Cii. 'iVl; 

in<; Co., L. U. -2 Kq. '2C.4 ; I olbv i-. Gads- Dart. V. cfc 1'. 7.">. 
(km, 15 W. II. 1185. See JLIarris v. M'lint c Wooilin, 9 Ila. CIS. 

Kcmble. 5 l>liirl>, 7;J<\ * Lowndes v. Lane, 2 t'nx, 36.3 ; 

" Perfect v. Lane, 3 D. F. k J. 3C!>. Rnbsoa v. Earl of Devon, 4 Jur. N. S 

' Dykes v. IM.ike, 4 Bin^. X. C. 403; 245. 
Bartlett v. Salmon, G D. M. <t G. 41 ; 



♦ Camp r. Camp, 2 Ala. G33 ; P.irliam v. Rundolph, 4 IIow. (Miss.) 435. 
When the misrepresoutation relates to the title, the fact that the deed 
13 on record is immaterial. Parham v. Randolph, 4 IIow. (Miss.) 435 



82 



Mi^iiti:n:r.si:NTATioN. 



at all, iniisit Ki- apjtlifd with «,Mvat caution.' •"■ \.ir will n con- 
ilitiiin in partirnlars ot" salo that nusdi'scriptidiis m- fiTi>rs in 
j>artifnlars i»t' siilc shall nut annnl the Kilo cover a iVaiidulent 
misrepresentation.' 

A misrepresentation, to he mati-rial, should he in res])ect 
of an ascertainable fact, as distin^nished tVoin a nure matter 
of opinion.^f A rej)resentation which merely anntunts to ii 
statement of (»pinion, jnd^ment, j)rol>al)ility, (»r e.\})ectation, or 
is vague and indefinite in its nature and tenn.s, or is merely a 
loose, conjectural, or exai^gerated statement, goes for nothing, 
though it may not he true, for a man is not ju.stitied in jdacing 
reliance on it.*:}: An indelinite representation ought to put 
the person to whom it is nuide upon inciuiry."^ If he chooses 
to put faith in such a statement, and abstains from in(piiry, ho 
has no ground of comidaint.^ Mere e.xaggeration is a totally 



• Colhy r. Gadsden, IT. W. U. 11.15. A G. 134; niir'.,'ins v. Snmols, 2 .1. A II. 
» Duke of Norfolk v. Worthy. 1 4f.4 ; Lcyluiid v. lllLni,'wortl), 2 D. F. d: 

rnnip. H37; Fi-nton r. Urowii, m'Vos. J. 248. 

144; Stewart >: Alli^ton. 1 Mor. 2f. ; MInycrnft v. Cn-nsy, 2 Kii8t, '.12; 

Trower r. Nfui-omhc, :{ Mer. 7uJ; Drysdiile r. Macf, .'i 1). .M. tt (;. lu7 ; 

Sii.i<kl»-t«in V. r^iitclitrf, 1 l>c;j. tt S. Kiscli f. CViifral Vi-iifziu-la Kailwiiy ("<>. 

COD; L.'slif r. Tonipson, U 11a. 27:i. IS 1). J. tt S. IJ-J ; JKiiton i: Ma. m-il. 

Sec Edwards I'. Wickwar, L. U. 1 Eq. L. U. 2 Eq. :{.")2 ; Dimiiiock r. Ilalkt, 

C8. E. H. 2(li A pp. 27. 

* Lysney r. Selby, 2 Lord Kayni. ' Lord Brooke r. Uoiuidthwaito, B 
1118;" IJrunton r. f.ister, » Atk. :;".sf, ; Ila. ;i<t4 ; Diiiimock r. llalktt, L. K. 2 
Vernon r. Keys, 12 East, f):!2, 4 Taunt. L'h. App. 27. 

448; Jenninj^s v, liroughton, D. M. " 7i. 



• The line wliirli separates case.s where the rule of cnrent emptor 
applies from others which call for relief, is not lUlined witli entire pre- 
cision. Each one will rest, in some measure, upon its peculiar tireumstance.-*. 
Mean r. Ileiriek. 12 .Mc. 202; Prinofle r. Samuel, I Lilt. 4M. 

t Davi.s r. Me<kir, r. Joluis. :J."»4; Manncy r. Porter. :i Ilumpli. 347. 

J Payne r. Smitii, 20 (leo. (•.•■.4; Foley r. Cow{,m1I, (5 HIaikf. IS; Turner 
r. Navigation Co. 2 Dev. Ch. 2:5(; ; Hulls i\ Thompson. 1 Smi«l. iV: Mar. 

44:}. 

A failure in a speculation does not constitute p.-mnd f.>r relief. Tur- 
ner r. Navigation ("o. 2 Dev. ("h. 2:50. 

A miHrepreHentation wliieii is enlculated to put eommnn pruduuco off 
itH guard, i» sullieient. IJcan r. llerriclt, 12 Me. 202. 



nisi{i:i'hi:si:nt.\ti()\. 83 

difTorenf tliliiix rrmii iiii.sru])rL'8entHti(»ii ^l\' :i precise or delinito 
i'act.' * Such Htatenit'iils, for instance, as a.sscrtionfi as to tho 
value of |ir(»j)crty,^ or representations by tlie ayeiit of the ven- 
dor of laiiil that tlie title is good ,^ or mere general terms of 
conunciKJ.iliun,' or mere gi-Hcral and exaggerated statements 
as to the i)roiit.s and prospects of a company,^ or as to the 
value of securities,*^ or as to the situation of j)roi)erty,'' or mere 
loose, conjectural, or exaggerated assertions with respect to a 
subject matter, whicli is a matter of speculation, or is essen- 
tially of an niiccrtain nature,* or mere conjectural estimates,'t 
are only expressions of opinion or judgment, as to which 
honest men may well differ materially. !Merc general asser- 

' Ilipfcnns V. Snmcls, 2 J. <fc II. 4tVI ; wood v. Cope, 25 Bcav. 140; Ilig^ina 

Ros.s )'. I'^states IiivestiiK'nt Co. L. 11. '.i v. Saineh, 2 J. tfc II. 400. 

Eq. i;i('>. * New Brunswick, etc.. Railway Co. 

•■ Harvey t-. Young, Yclv. 20 ; Baily j-. Convln'are, 9 II. L. 711; Kisch v. 

r. MerrcU, 3 Bulst 94 Cro. Jac. .'JSt; ; Central Venezui-Ia Railway Co. 3 D. J. 

Jcndwine i'. Slaile, 2 Esp. 572; Ingram & S. 122; Denton i'. ilaeneil, L. R. 2 

V. Thorp. 7 lla. 74. Kq. .•'..■)2. . 

' Hume V. Pocock, L. R. 1 Ch. App. " National E.vclmnge Co. v. Drew, 23 

SS.*). Dec of Ct. of Session, 2d series, p. 1. 

* Fenton v. Brown, 14 Yes. 144; ' Colby r. Gadsden, 34 Beav. 416. 

Trowcr r. Ncwcome, 3 Mt-r. 701 ; Scott " Jennings v. Brouirhton, .'i D. M. A 

t'. Hanson, 1 R. <fc M. 120; White v. G. 13G ; Stephens i;. Venables, 31 Beav. 

Cuddon. 8 (1. »fc Fin. 70(1 ; Dimmock v. 124. 

llallelt, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 20. See .Jen- " Irvine v. Kirk-patrick, 7 Bell, Sc. 

ning.s V. Broiighton, .'> 1>. M. ct G. 120; App. Ca 1S6. 
Johuson V. Smart, 2 Gitf. 151; Hay- 



* A fraiululcnt combination ami confederacy, between a lessee and a 
third person, to induce tho lessor to purdiase the leasehold tlirouL^h false 
representations made by such thirtl pci-son, and an assertion of his desire 
to purcliasc in case he can oljtain the property, is not a simple commenda- 
tion. Adams v. Soule, 33 Vt. 538. 

t A gross misrepresentation, as to the boundaries of land, is fraudulent. 
Griggs r. Woodruff, 14 Ala. 9; Elliott r. Boaly, 9 ^Vla. 772 ; Fisher t). 
Pro])art, o Iley. 75 ; Camp v. Camp, 2 Ala. 032. 

To ascertain the quantity of land requires greater skill and a larger 
proportion of science than is acquired by the majority of men. and a mis- 
representation in that respect is material. Pringle v. Samuel 1 Litt. 43. 

The estimates of quantities, in tliemsclves uncertain and unmeasured, 
may differ at different times from various circumstances, without any sus- 
picion of willful misrepre3cntation. Stebbins r. Eddy, 4 Mason, 414. 



S-1 M lSKi:rUi:SENTATl«)N. 

tions of ft vi'inlnr of |ii-(ijuM-ty ;is t(» its \aliu', (H* llic price ho 
Imti heou oHiTC"! for it, or in rt'LT-'inl to it- <|ii:ilitirs mikI clianu'- 
toristii's; ns, fur iiiRtancc, that land is I'crtilc ami inipruvaliK-, 
or that s<»il is adapted f(tr a particular mode (»f culture, ur is 
well watered, or is capable of ]>ro(hicini; crops, or suppctrtiui; 
cattle, or that a house is u desirahle resideiu'e, iVrc., are assumed 
to he so ctHMMionly made hy jk-iv-ous lia\ iii^' property f«»r sale* 
that a ])urihaser cannot safely place coiiiidenee in them. At- 
lirmations of the sort are always understood as atfordini; to a 
jturchaser no ^rotnid for ne^lectin^ to examine for himself, 
and ascertain the real condition of tlie ])ro])erty. They are, 
strictly spcakin:^^ ijniiis <llcf<i. A man who i-i'lii-s <»n such 
alhnnations, made hy a person whose interest mi^ht so readily 
l'rom])t Ijim to invest the property with exa^'i^erated value, 
does 60 at his ])cril, and must take the consequences of his own 
imprudence; cMj)tor emit qiiam mhihno jx/iest ,' vcndito/' 
vendit <jua//t majchiio jjnUst}* Although such aflh-mations 
iiiav he erroneous or fal>e, ihcy will not, except in extreme 
cases, he regarded as evidence of a frauthdent intent.' A 
statement of vahie may, liowever, he so plainly false, as to 
make it impossible for the party to have believed wliat ho 
statech^ So, also, statements with rei^i)ect to the (piality or 
eonditiitn of hmd, will, if erroneous or false, amitunt in ex- 
treme cases, to a nii>reitri'.-cntation in law.* So, also, a state- 

' 1 Roll. .\b. 101,].!. Ifi; Lonkina t;. "//>..• Dimmock r. Ilnllott. L. U. 2 

flip-'fll, 1 Siii.llO, 1 Li-v.l()'.J; llnrvt-yt'. Ch. Aw. 2(J. 

Y'HiDfj, Yflv. 'J<i ; Tniwtr »'. Nfwcoiiic, 'Wall r. Stuhbs, 1 Miuid. 80; In- 

:{ MtT. 7<'l ; Scott I-. HniiHon, 1 It. A: M. {;riiiii r. Tliorii, 7 I In. 74. 
r.".»; Mc<ll>ury »•■ Wutmin. « .Mito. ' hiinmock <•. lIullHt. L. U. 2 Ch. 

(Ainer.) '.i.'>y ; " donloii v. I'aniu-lco, "2 Apji. Uf); Van Kjnts r. llurrisoii, 6 Hill 

All<-n ( Aiiier.), '1\\ ; .MaiiDiii;^ v. Albci-, (Aiiier.), fi7. 
1 1 ib. 'oTL 



• Anderson r. Ilnll, 2 Pmc«l. «k Mar. 079; Evans r. Bollin;:. .'5 Alu. 550; 
llnllH r. TlionipHon 1 Snud. A: .Mar. 41:J. 

+ Hr.xlduH r. .McCall. W Cull. 510; Peyton r. Butkr, U II»y. 141 ; Pitt« 
r. Coltingliaui U Port. 075. 



I^IISHRPRESENTATION. 85 

iiU'iit ill (Iio |ii*()Sj)cct us (tf ;i coiiiii.'iii y, tliat tin; iiroinotcrfl of 
the CKiiiiiMuv li;i<l t;ikfii ''a lari^o portiDii "" of tin; Hliures, 
thouirli Vii^riie in its iiatiii'i', will aiiioiiut, in (.•xtrciiiu cases, tu a 
inisrc[iivsc'ntati(iii.' 

An assertion that a tliii'd |)ci'.-~oii !ias oilcTed a s|i('cilic(l simi 
for the ])r()iifi'ty, thi)Hi;li false, is, like mere statements of 
value, an assei'tion of so vai^ntt and loose a cliaracter, that a 
purchaser is not justitied in relyini^ on it.'* 

The difference hetween a false a\'erment in matter of fact, 
and a like falseliood in matter of jud<;ment, opinion, and esti- 
mate, is wi'll illusti-ated l>y familiar eases in the hooks. If the 
owner of an estate afHriii that it will let or sell for a fj^iven sum, 
when, in fact, such sum cannot he obtained for it, it is, in its 
own nature, a matter of judij:;ment and estimate, and so the par- 
ties must have considered it.^ * But if an owner falsely affirm 
that an estate is let for a certain sum, when it is, in fact, let for 
a smaller sum, or that the pi-otits of a business are more than, 
in fact, they are, and thereby induces a purchaser to i,'ive a 
higher price for the property, it is fraud, because the matter 
lies within the private knowledge of the owner.^ If, again, 

' Ilcndersou v. Lacnn, L. R. 5 E |. * Elciiis v. Trcsham, 1 Lev. 102 ; 

257. Lvsnoy c. Sclliy, 2 Lord Raym. 1118; 

"Sug. V. «fc r. 3, 1 Roll. Ab. 101, pi. iJobfll i: Stevens. 3 -B. <fc C. 02:3; 

16. Ihitcliinso!! /•. Morlcy, 7 Scott, 341 ; 

' ITnrvey v. Youn^, Yelv. 20, 1 IJoll. DiiiiiiK.ck r. Haiknt, 'L. R. 2 Cli. App. 

Ab, 801, pi. Hi; Leakins »'. dispell, 1 2S ; Medbury r. Watson, Mete. 

Sid. 110 ; coiiip. binunock !'. llallett, (Amer.) 25"J. 
L. R. 2 C'li. App. 28. 



* If a person soils a trict of land, cdaimin'^ to be tlie o;vner, and 
knowing that he is not so, he is guilty of fr.aul. But if he professes 
to sell, not the paramount title, but a claim dcriyed from a particular 
source, he is not guilty of a fraud, merely, because he expresses an opinion 
as to the legal value or strength of his claim, which the facts do not justify, 
so long as he makes no false statement as to what those facts are. Drake 
p. Latham, 50 111. 270. 

A false representation that land will yield a certain amount of salt- 
petre, is fraudulent. Perkins v. Rice, G Litt. 2iy. 



so MISREPRESENTATION. 

the owner of l:uul roprosi-iit that it is well watoivd, the state- 
ment will not, alth<.>i:rh erroneous or false, anK.iint in law to u 
misrepresentation, I'xet-j.t in ixlivnie eases;' hut, if he repre- 
sents that land is situated on the hanks of a river, whereas it is 
some miles olV trom the river, there is misrepresentation, for 
the false rej^resentation is in respect to a precise and definite 
fact.' So, also, is there misrepresentation «»f a fad, if the 
representation he calculated to lead the person to whom it is 
made to believe that there is a natural supply of water on the 
property, whereas the fact is that the proi»erty, though well 
sui)i»lied with Avater, derives its supply artitieially from the 
waterworks of a town, and l>y ])aynient of rates.'''* 

The representation of an actual state of things as existing, 
is equivalent to the misrejircsentation of a fact.* 

In Vernon v. Keyes,' the true rule was stated to be that 
the seller was liable to an action of deceit, if he fraudulently 
misrepresent the (piality of the thini; sold in some particulars 
which the buyer has not cfiual means of knowledge with him- 
Belf ; or if he do so in such a manner as to induce the buyer 
to forbear making the inquiries which, for his own security 
and advantage, he would otherwise have nuide. 

The rule that exaggeration, as distinguished from misrep- 
resentation, ^oes for nothing, applies with peculiar force to the 
case of statements in the prospectuses of conqKinies. The 
promoters of adventures are so prone to form sanguine expec- 
tations as to the prospects of the schemes which they introduce 
to the public, that some high eok-ring and some exaggeration 

'.Scott V. llanHon, 1 K. it M. I'i'.* ; ' Ley In ml r. lllin^rworlli, '2 D. F. A 

Trowcr V. Nowcomo, U Mer. 7<»1. J. 2>:i. 

» Von Kl>l»8 V. llarrboD, 5 Hill M'i;;i;<)tt f. Strallon, Julin. 350; 1 D. 

(Anicr.), 67. I". A J. ID. 

» lU Kimf. Ca2. 



♦ Pitts r. C'ottinf^lumi. 9 Port. 075 ; Lewis r. McLcmon, 10 Ycrg. 205 ; 
Moucll r. Colclcn, i;j Joliua. IJOo. 



Misiii;rni:si:NTATi()N. 87 

in the dcscriiitioii of the :i<lvant:i<;('s wliidi iirc; likely to be en- 
joyed by the subscribers to the uiulLTtakiii;^', may <^'ciierally bo 
expected in such documents. No prudent man can, (>\viii[^ to 
the well-known prevalence of exa^i,'eration in such docuniciits, 
acce[)t the prospects which are held out by tin.- originators of 
every new scheme, without considerable abatement. But, 
though the representations in the jtrospectus of a company 
ought not, perhaps, to be tried by as strict a test as is applied 
in other cases, they are required to be fair, honest, and bond 
fide. There must be no misstatement of any material facts or 
circumstances.^ 

As, on the one hand, mere assertions of value by the ven- 
dor of property are not fraudulent in law, though erroneous or 
false ; so, on the other hand, a disparagement of property by a 
purchaser is not a fi-aud." Xor is a buyer liable for misrepre- 
senting a seller's chance of sale or probability of his getting a 
better price. It is a false representation in a matter merely 
gratis dictum by the bidder, in respect of which he is nnder 
no le"-al duty to the seller for the correctness of his statement, 
and upon which the seller would be incautious to rely.' So, 
also, is a representation by a purchaser to a seller, that his 
partners would not consent to his giving more than a certain 
sum, though ftdse, merely a gratis dictum} But though the 
value of property is generally a matter of opinion, a vendor 
may put npon a purchaser the responsibility of informing him 
correctly as to the market value, or any other fact known to 
him, aftccting the value of property, and if the purchaser an- 
swers untruly, there is fraud. He is not bound to answer in 
such cases, but if he does he is bound to speak the truth.^ 

' Kisch V. Central Rnilwny Co. of ' Tate v. Williamson, L. R. 2 Ch. 

Venezuela, 3 1>. J. «fc S. 122; Denton i\pp. ti'i. 

f. Miiencil, L. K. 2 Eq. 352; Central ' Vernon v. Keys, 12 East, 637. 

Kaihvay Co. of Venezuela v. Kisch, L. * lb. 

R. a Ajip Ca. 113. * Smith v. Countryman, 3 TiJT. 

(Amer.) 6S3, per Miller, J. 



88 M ISKKPRKSENTATION. 

The representations »»f a veiitlnr of real estate tu the 
vendee, as to the jtrifc whicli hi- has paid lor il, arc, in resj)eot 
of the reliance to he plafetl on them, to he regarded j^enerully 
in the same lii,dit as representations respeetinj^ its value, or 
tlic olVers wliich have heen made lor it. A ])urehaser is not 
jjistilied in ]>hu-inir contidenee on them.' Uiit a false aflirma- 
tioii hv a vi-nddr as to the actual eost of property,*"* or as 
to the amount spent upon it hy him in improvements,' may 
amount to a fraudulent misrcin-esentation. 

A vendor is not hound to disclose to the vendee the true 
ownership of tlie proi>erty lie is enj^'a^ed in sellin-,', but he is 
iManul to al»tain from nuikini; any misrepresentations respeet- 
in^' the ownership.* 

As distinguislied from tlie false representation of a fact, the 
false representation as to a matter ot intention, not anu)unting 
to a matter of fact, thoui,di it may have influenced a transac- 
tion, is not a fraud at law,'' nor does it allonl a iri'ound for 
relief in cquitv.^ AVhere a man was induced to grant a lease 
of certain premises to another, upon a rei)resentation that ho 
intended to use the premises for a stated purpose, whereas lie 
intended to use and did use them for a different aiul illegal 
purpose, it was held that the misrepresentation ilid not entitle 
the lessor to have the lease avoided.' So, also, Mhere a man 
who ha<l given a bond to another, upon which judgment had 
been entered up, had married u])on the declaration of the 

' Mi-dhnrvf. Watson. t'>Mi-tc.(AimT.) rillowcs v. Lord f!wy<lyr, 1 U. it M 

".')'.»' Ilfimner v. Cooper, 8 Allen Kit ; NfUhorpe c. lloliiiite, 1 Coll. '-'us. 

(Anier.). :i:JI. 'Vernon ,: K.ys. 12 Kn^^t, 6:{7 ; 

' Saiuiford. »•. Hnntlv, T.\ Wend. Henimin^wny ''. lliiniilton, -1 M. it W. 

(Atner.) 'HVJ; Van Kppn' r HarrHon, .'• 122; Feret i: Hill. 1.') C. H. 22.'>. 

Hill ( Ainer.), «*>7. " .lonlen v. .Money, r. H. L. 185; 

* Ko«« f. KntaU'S InvoBtincnl Co.. I.. Hold i'. llutehinson, t> D. M. A C>. S.'iS ; 

u " Km 1"*^. ^^"^' ''• ^'■"•'k, ;< Sin. «t (J. mv. 

• Hill •■. (Jmy. 1 Stnrk.t.'M ; Matnrin '' FeKt r. Hill, 15 C. IJ. 2U7. 
V. 'Irt«lennick,'2 >'. U. 514 ; but couii). 



' Kandfurd r. llaii-ly. 2;] Wcud. 2C0 ; Pcndcrgiiat r. Heed, 29 M.i. :598. 



MISUICPRKSENTATION. 89 

porsdii \v]ii> licld the hond .iihI warr.iiit of nttomc}', tliat hIic 
had ahaiidoiird tht; claim, aii<l wuidd mj\rr truuMc him ahoiit 
it, the court wunld not restrain her I'runi eiil'orciiii^ at law the 
jud^'nient on the warrant of attorney. J^ord St. J.eonards, 
however, dissented from the oitiidon of the majority of tlie 
court, hohh'iiii: it to la- immaterial in (Miuity, wlictliri- the mis- 
representation be of Ji fact or an intention.' Ihit if the re])re- 
sentation, tliou^di in form a rei)resentation as to a matter of 
intention, amounts in elfect to a representation as to a matter 
of fact, relief maybe had in' equity. Where, accordini;ly, a 
lessoi-, j)cndin^- an a^rcemi'iit foi- a building lease, represented 
to tlie intended lessee, that he could not obstruct the sea view 
from the houses to be built by the lessee, because he himself was 
a lessee under a lease for 01)9 years, containing covenants which 
restricted him from so doing ; but after the building lease had 
been taken, and the houses ]»uilt upon the faith of the re[>re- 
seutatiou the lessor surrendered his 991.) years' lease, and took 
a new lease omitting the restrictive years, the court, consider- 
ing the representation to have Ijeen in effect a representation 
as to a nuitter of fact, restrained the lessor by injunction from 
building so as to obstruct the sea view.^ 

A representation which amounts to a mere expression of 
intention must be distinguished from a rejiresentation which 
amounts to an engagement. If a representation amounts to an 
engagement, the party making it is bound in equity to make it 
good.^ Where, for instance, a man previously to the marriage 
of his daughter said he intended to leave her 10,000/. which 
M-as to be settled in a particular way, and that the person about 
to marry her was for this reason to settle 5,000/. on her, and 



' Jordcn v. Money, 5 II. L. 185. Pee Mlammersley «-. De Biel, 12 01. & 

Cross r. SprifTire, r> 'lift. 553; Maunsell Fin. 45; Maunsell »-. Iledffo.^, 4 11. J,, 

f. Iledjre.^. 4 II. L. 1(189; comp. Yeu- 105fj ; Loxley r. Heath, 1 I). F. <k J. 

mans r. Williams, L. R. 1 Kq. 185. 4'J2 ; Loffus v. Maw, 3 Giff. 592. 

' I'ic^gott V. IStrntton, John. 350, 1 D. 
F. ik J. 49. 



90 MlSIM-l'in'.SI-.NTATION, 

tho party did make the .sfttk-iiu-nf aii<l iiiarrii-d tlie lady, the 
en^i^'inout wik> hold hiiidinir, t'<»r tlit- circimistaiKH's niuDunted 
to a contract.' It", on the <>tlitr liati<l, a man i.n'\ i..ii-ly to tho 
marriaijo of a relation tells him tliat lir has made his w ill and 
left him Ids property, and that he is conlideiit he never wonld 
alter liis will to his disadvantai^e, or tells him hefore his mar- 
riage to In's danirhter that lie would leave her s(^ much money, 
this is a mere expression of intention, on which the i>erson to 
whom it is addressed is not justified in relying'.' A representa- 
tion which amounts to an eiiirai^ement is enforced not as heing 
a representation of an intention, hut as amounting to a con- 
tract.' There is no miildle term, no tertium qiii^l^ hetween a 
representation so ma<le to he effective for such a ])urpose and 
being eftcctive for it and a contract.* 

A misrepresentation of a matter of law does not constitute 
fraud at law, because the law is presumed to be equally within 
the knowledge of all the parties. Thus, the misrepresentation 
of the legal effects of a written agreement wliicli a party signs 
with a full knowledge of its contents, is not a sulHcient ground 
at law for avoiding the agreement.** But if a man dealing 
with another misleads him, and takes advantage of his ignor- 
ance respecting his legal position and rights, though there may 

•nammcrsW v. Do Bid, 12 CI. <fe ' Hold r. Ilntcliins m, 5 D. M. AG. 

Fin. 4r>. S<-e ISarkworth f. Yniin?. 4 r.58 ; Mimii-^cll c llc.l;:.s, I II. L. 1056; 

Dn-w. 1; I'rolc v. Sondv, 2 (iilT. 20; LoxI.'V v. li.atli. 1 1). V.& J. •Jl)2. 

L.ffus V. Mnw, 3 GiJr. 5'J2 ; Alt i-. Alt, « 4 H. L. l(»:.r.. prr Lonl tVniiworth. 

4 Oiff. 84. * Lewis r. Joiios, 4 15. «t (.'. 50(5. Sco 

>•• boM t'. Iliitcliinpon, 5 D. M. A (J. Ularklmnrrt ('us.-. 8 I). M. A G. 177: 

r.58; Maun«<ll r. lii-d^'i-H. 4 II. L. KtS'.t ; Kiu-hduU v. Ford, L. U. 2 Eq. 750. 
Ix>xK-y %'. lliath, 1 I». V. &. i.Vri; 
Laver v. Gildur, 'A'l Beav. 4. 



♦ RiiBsrll r. Brnnh.ini. 8 Blarkf. 277; Si.iit r. Brnncft, 5 ITill. 303 ; 
Martin r. Wharton, 3H Alu. 037; Kish r. CUland, 33 111. 23M; Jasper r. 
Ilamilton, 3 Dana, 280 ; Ooode v. llawkias, 2 Dcv. Cb. 303 ; Clem p. Now 
& Dun. R. R Co.. 9 Incl. 4^8. 



MISUKPRKSKNTATION. 91 

Ito no li'iral rr.iud. fill' case may coiiie witliiii tlic jurisdiction 
cxercMSL'il hy c'oiirt.s ot" e(iiiity to prevent impo.sitioii.* '^ 

To conntitute a Iraiululent representation, tlie representa- 
tion need not bo made in terms expressly stating the existence 
of some tact wliidi d.ies not exist. If a statement lu; made l)y 
a man in >iicli terms as would naturally lead the jicrsun to 
whom it was made to snpp(»se the existence of a certain state 
of Ikcts, and if such statement he so made designedly and 
fraudulently, it is as much a fraudulent misrei)rosentation as if 
the statement of an untrue fact were maile in express terms.^ 

A representation may he false l>y reason n<»t only of posi- 
tive misstatements contained in it, hut hy reason of intentional 
suppression whcrehy the information it gives assimies a false 
color, giving a false impression, and leading necessarily, or 
ahnost necessarily, to erroneous conclusion.^ Fallit et qui ob- 
scure loquitur et qui dissimulat insidiose vel obscure} Dolum 
malum a se dbesse pracstare venditor debet : qui non tantum 
in €0 est qui fdllendi causa obscure loquitur; sed et I am qui 
insidiose, obscure dissimulate It is the duty of a vendor of 
property to make himself acquainted with all the peculiarities 
and incidents of the property which he is going to sell, and 
when he describes the property for the information of a pur- 
chaser, it is his duty to describe ev^erything which it is material 
for him to know, in order to judge of the nature and value of 
the property. It is not for him just to tell what is not actually 

' Infra — Mistake. Flint v. WoodiD, 9 Ila. r,21 ; conip. 

' Loo V. Jones, 17 C. B. X. S. 510. /.cc Bold i-. Iliitchinson, 5 I). M. ct G. 5'.«. 
Crompton, J. ; Ldwndes v. Lane, 2Co.\-, ' Cullen'3 Trustee v. Johnston, 3 Dea 

S03 ; Walker v. Svmonds. 3 S\v. 73; of Court of Session, 3d serie.?, p. 930. 
Drysdale v. Mace.'s D. M. «fe G. 103; * Dig. Lib. 18, tit. 1, le<r. 43. 

' 76. 



* Townsond r. Coales, 31 Ala. 428 ; Drc^ r. Clarke. Cooke. 374 ; Broad- 
well c. BroadwcU, 1 Oilman, 59r>. 

A misrepresentation as to the legal effect of an instrument may bo 
fraudulent. Colter r. Morgan. 12 B. Mnn. 278. 



02 Misni:rR!:srATM i(»N'. 

untruo, leavliiir <mt a •^vr:it deal that is true, ami l(>avinix it to 
tlu' jmn-liasiT to iiitjuirc whctluT tlicii' is any i-iror ur oiuission 
in tin- (li'>cri|iti<>n or imt.' 

Tlit'iv is a iiiisiTprt'Sfntation, if n statement 1)0 so made 
that the acutencs:* and industry of the pors(»n to wlioni it U 
made is set to sleep, and he is indut-ed ti» heliove the eontrary 
of wliat is the real state of the case.- It', for instance, there is 
a misrepresentation as to tlie terms of a particular covenant, 
which turned out to bo of a much more strin^^ent description, 
there is fraud.' So also where conditions of sale arc so ob- 
scurely worded that when taken in connection Mith the par- 
ticulars of sale they are likely to nii>lend an ordinary j)urehaser 
as to the nature of the proj)erty, there is iVaud.* A representa- 
tion thoui,di true to the letter, may 1« in substance a misrepre- 
sentation." There is a misrepresentation, if a statement is cal- 
culated to mislead or throw the person to whom it is made otV 
his <ruard, thoni^di it niav bo literally true." An assertion, on 
the other band, by a man of what be thinks entitled in ])t»int 
of law to assert is not a misrepresentation, thouii^h it may not 
be strictly correct.' 

A misrepresentation is usually by words; but it may be a.s 
well by acts or deeds, as by words ; by artifices to mislead as 
well as by actual assertions. Kven in chail'erini; almut i;^uo<l.? 
there may be such misrepresentation as te» avoid a contract. A 
man, who by act (»r deed falsely and fraudulently impresses the 



• BrnniHins i. riiimmcr, 2Drew. 430. Inycstmcnt Co., L. R. .T Eq. 135. See 
' l'oi>o r. (iarlaiid. I V. <k C. 4Ul ; lloMis .•. Norton, 1 Verm. 13S; Crofta 

SpuniuT r. Walsli, M Jr. Ecj. :\m. v. Mi.ldl.-toii, 'i IC. it .1. 'jn). 

' Fliuhl V. Bootli, 1 iJinj;. N. ('. 877; ' IMw.ir.I-* v. W i.kwar, L. U. 1 Eq. 

Van V. CorjM', 3 .M. A C. 'iCU; Flight t>. CS ; l)ii oik v. Hullitt. L. K. 2 Cli. 

harion, ifj. 'IH'i. '^VV -'^' '''•''9 •'• Hstnti-n InvcMlincnt 

♦ Tnylor r. Martindalc, 1 Y. <k C. C. Co.. L. K. a Kq. i:i.'>; t'oiby ••. (Jndsdcn. 
C. f.r>H. !.'■ W. |{. lls.^; ChestiT r Spurj^o, Irt 

* LowndoH V. Imw, 2 r<.x, .'JC:!; Flint W. \l. .'>7tl. 

9. \Vo(,<lin, l» lln. f.lH; M«nlon r. 'laU ' Li-iri:" »■. ('rokor. 1 Hn. «t Re. ft06 ; 

tier(»all, 1 Stn. 6i (i. '>~'J ; .M'<"ullo<li r-. New !<riiii'<\vick, <kc. Ifailway Co. v. 

linxory. 1 K. 4 J. '-'««; <;inrk<- r. Itj.k Conyl»i-an\ It II. L. 71 1. bee Wildo ». 

■on, 6 0. B. N 8. 453 ; ItoBi r. EHtatt-a Gil>»ou, 1 M. L 026. 



MTsni:i'Ki:sr:NTATinN. 



03 



mind id' niiothcr wIlli a ccif.iiii htliel' wlicrehy li(> is mlBlcMl to 
liis injury, isa-s much ^'uilty ofu misrL'i)reHt'ntation as if lie had 
deliberately asserted a falsehood.'* It is a fraud to impresH 
upon a vendible article the trade-mark of another in order to 
give it fjjreater currency in the inai-k<-t.* 

It is not enoii-li that tlici-c lias been a misre])rcsentation, 
and that the misrepresentation has conduced in some way to 
the transaction in question. It is necessary that the misrepre- 
sentation should have been made in relation to the transaction 
in question, and witli the <IIr('ct intent to induce the })arty to 
Mhoin it is immediately made, or a third party, to act in the 
way that occasions the injury.' A representation which has 
been made some time before the date of the transaction in 
question is not sufficient, unless it can be clearly shown to have 
been immediately connected with it.-* A re])resentation to be 
of any avail whatever, must, unless under special circuiiistanees, 
have been made at the time of the treaty,^ and should not 
have any relation to any collateral matter or other relation or 
dealing between the parties.' 



' Sibhald r. II ill, li Dow. 2i',i-. ; Lovcll 
»'. Hicks, 2 Y. «k C. 55; Craw.shay v. 
Tliorntoii, 4 M. A G. o87 ; Barnes i>. 
lVnm-11. -2 II. L. 4'.>7. 

' C'ra\v>liay i'. Tliornton, 4 il. tfe G. 
.S87. Sio Kerr on Injnnction.s, p. 474. 

* East India Co. «■. Ilenclinian, 1 Ves. 
J. 287 ; Dobell v. StcvenrJ, li li cfc ('. 
623 ; Harris v. Keniblo, 5 Bliijh. N. S. 
7:50; Attwood v. Small, tl CI.' tt Fin. 
2;!2, 44,'); Irvine r. Kirkpatrick, 7 Bell's 
Sc. .\p. ('a. ISC; I'.uriies V. I'ennoll, 2 
H. L. 4<t7, r.2<*; Smith v. Kay, 7 H. L. 
750, 775 ; National Exehan^ije Co. v. 
Drew, 2 Macq. 120; N'icoH's Case, 3 D. 
& J. 387, 440; Jameson v. Stein, 21 
Bcav. 6 ; Denne v. Light, 8 D. M. ik G. 



774; Barry v. Cr.>sskp3-, 2 J. A H. 1 ; 
"Way >: Heartic, ."2 L. .1. C. P. 34; 
Queen v. Sadlers' Co., 10 II. L. 4ii4. 

* Bnrnes »•. I'ennell. 2 II. L. 4!»7, 530. 
See Nieoll's Case, 3 D. .fc J. 439; 
Wlieelton /■. Ilardisty, S E. & B. 232: 
]\Iaunsell i: Hedges, "4 IL L. 1060, ;)fr 
Lord St. Leonards; Barrett's Ca.sc, 3 D. 
J. it S. 30 ; Western Bank of Scotland 
V. Addie, L. K. 1 Sc. App. Ca. 15.'). 

'Harris c Kenible, 1 Sim. 122, />*r 
Sir J. Leaeh, M, K. Sec \\ heclton v. 
Ilardisty, El. Bl. cfc El. 232; lIol«om r. 
Browne, '.» C. B. N. S. 445 ; Smith r. 
Kay, 7 II. L. 750. 

° Harris i;. Kemble, 1 Sim. 122. .I 
Bliph's X. S. 730; National Exchange 
Co. V. Drew, 2 Macq. 103. 



* JIartin r. Pcnnock, 2 Barr. 376 ; Graves r. Wliitc, 1 Frocm. n? ; 
Chisholm r. Gaflsdcn, 1 Strobh. 220; Smith v. JlitclHll. 6 Geo. 4r,H; Reese 
r. Wyman, 9 Geo. 430 ; Cochran r. Cummings, 4 DalL 250 ; Willink r. 
Vanderwear, 1 Barb. 599. 



94 MISRKPRESEKTATION. 

Mi>rtjinsont:itit»ii, lutwcvcr, ^ucs lor nothing cither at law 
or in cijuity unk-ss a man lias been misled therehy to liis prejn- 
tlii-e.* I'r.iud withiMit <l;uii:i:^e is not huflicii-iit to support an 
action or to be af^round for nlief in eijuity.' Ihit it is enough 
if the reproscntati(»n ojierafeH t() the ])rejudice of a man to a 
very small extent.* Fraud givt's a cause of action if it leads 
to any sort of danuige.' Hut in order tliat a false representa- 
tion should give a c;uisc of action the daiuagi- nni.-t be the im- 
mediate and not the remote cause of the representation.^ 

^lisrcprcsentation may consist as well in the concealment 
of what is true as in the assertion of what is false.' If a man 
conceals a fact that is nuiterial to the ti-imsaction, knowing that 
the other i>arty act> on the]tresuni])tii>n that no .such fact exists, 
it is as much a fraud as if the existence of such fact were 
expressly denied or the revei*se of it expressly stated.*! ^'<^>n- 
cealment to be of any avail whatever, either at law or in equity, 
must be dolus dans locum contractuL There must be the sup- 

' Pdlhill r. Walter. :< K it Ad. lU ; * Bnrry i'. Crosskoy, 2 J. <t H. 1. 

Fill"Wcs r. Lord Gwvdyr, 1 Sim. C.:!, 1 ' 'lnpi"> »•. Lee. 3 R it P. 371 ; Con- 

li.it M. S3. See Flint. I'. Woodin, y trnl Knilwuy Co. of V( m-zufla ••. Ki<cli, 

Ila. 61«; Smith »•. Kay, 7 II. L. 75i». L. K. 2 App. (.'a. Ill; Uakvs v. Tur- 

* Cadmaii c lloriuT, 18 Vi-s. 10. Soo qiiund. ih. :;2tj. 
Uo8« »'. EstutfS InvcBtment Co., L. R. 3 ' Conycrd v. Ennis, 2 Mas3. (Aiacr.) 

E.1. 136. 23C.. 

» Smith V. Kav, 7 H. L. 750, 775. 



• Farrar r. Alston, 1 Dev. G9 ; Idc v. Gray, 11 Vt. Cir» ; Younp r. Bum- 
pass, 1 Frcc-ni. Ch. 241 ; Clark r. White, 12 Pit. 178; CJarrow r. Davis, 15 
IIow. 272: Ablx-y r. Dcwjy. 2'» Pcnn. 4i:}; Morgan r. lJli^s, 2 Mas-s. 112; 
Fulk-r r. ll<.>;.l(n, 2o M<'. 24:J. 

Tlu- true measure of damages is the ditlVrenre between the actual value 
of the property and the value which it would have possessed if it liati 
lieen as represented. Hawley r. Woodruff, 2 I.ans. 419. 

If a niiin i-^ procured to do an act even through fraud, yet tlie act will 
lie valid if it was such as the law woulil have compelled him to perform. 
Young r. HumpasH, 1 Freem. Ch. 241. 

t Rawdon r. lUatchford, 1 Sandf. Ch. a44 ; Trigg r. Ue.id, r» IIumi)h. 
520; Scott r. Ilamer, 2 Lans. 507; Smith t. Click, 4 Humph. 180; Pren- 
liMt. HU&.S 10 Me. 30. 



MISUi:rKi:SKNTA'II()N. 



U.'j 



prcssion of a fact, tho kiiowlod^o of w Ii'k h it is rcasoiiahlu to 
infer would have inadi; tlie otlu-r party to the transaction al»- 
stain fr(»Mi it altoi^'ctlicr. (Jonci'alMicnt of a iuct is jiot material 
if tlu; statement of that fact woiilil in. I liave induced a man 
(otherwise (h'>irons of t-nteriiiL,^ into the transaction; to ahstain 
from it' A concealment to he material must he the conceal- 
ment of somethini^ that tlie party conccalin;^ was ninler Sfjinc; 
leg'al or e(|uitahle ohliLraticMi to disclose.'' '^^ 

If the fact is one which ouuht to have hecn disclosed, the 
circumstance that it may not have been disclosed through mis- 
take, ignorance, or forgetfulness, cannot betaken into consider- 
ation. It is immaterial that the concealment may not have 
been wilful or intentional, or with a view to private ad- 
vantage.^ f It is also essential that tlie concealment should be 



' I'ulsford 1'. Riflmrds, 17 15eav. 98. 
Seo Dnvics v. Cooper, 5 M. it C. 270; 
Uniiibrigse v. Moss, 3 Jur. N. S. 58 ; 
Vnne v. Cobbold, 1 Excli. 798; New 
Bruniwick, itc. llnihvny Co. v. Jlii^'i^cr- 
iilpe, 1 Dr. A Sim. SOU; Ki.seli c Cen- 
tral Venczuelii Riiilway Co., 3 1>. J. it 
y. 122. 

' Irvine t'. Kirlqiatrick, 7 I?oll, Sc. 
Ap. 186; Ilor^fail v. Thomas, 1 II. &C. 
100, per IJramwiU, 13.; Arelil)uld i;. 
Lord llowtli, L. 11. Ir. 2 C. L. f)21». See 
Dalbiac v. Dalbiac, 10 Ves. 124; Dalby 
r. Pullcn, 1 K. <k M. 2'.»(j ; Adanison v. 
Evitt, 2 R. <t M. 72 ; Harris v. Kcmblo, 
1 Sim. Ill, 5 ]?lif,rh. 7:?it; (i roves v. 
Perkins, Sim. r)7'' ; Clarke r. 'i i|i])iii£^, 
9 Beav. 284; ."^tikeman r. Daw.-on.l 
Deg. «fe S. 90; Sliacklelon i-. Sutcliire, 



ifj. C09; Roddy >: Williams, 3 J. <t L. 
21; Abbott ». Sworder, 4 l)e(j. cfc S. 
448; Pulsford v. Richards, 17 Beav. 87; 
Maclure i: Ripley, 2 Mae. <t G. 274 '; 
Blikc V. M()\van,'21 Beav. 003; Beok 
V. Kaiitorowiez, 3 K. ct J. 247; Vane ;•. 
Cobbold, 1 Kxeh. 798; Ilnywood v. 
Cope, -J.-j Beav. 140; Brumfit;". Morton, 
3 .liir. X. S. 1198 ; Evans i: Carrin-'ton 
1 J. & II. .''.98, 2 I). F. & J. 481 ; New 
Brunswick, itc. Railway Co. v. Muff:;er- 
idire, 1 l)r. tfc Sm. 303; Greenfield,-. 
Edwards. 2 I>. .1. »fc S. 582, 698; Cen- 
tral Venezuela Railway Co. |i. Kisch, L. 
R. 2 App. C.a. 112; Re Madrid Rank 
L. R. 2 Kfj. 210; Hallows r. IVrnie, L. 
R. 3 Eq. f)30 ; Kent v. Freehold Land 
and Brickmakin<j: Co., L. R. 4 Eo. r>'.>s. 
' Pusey V. Desbouverie, 3 P. Wins, 



* Pearrett v. Sliawbhut. 5 Miss. 323; Jouzin r. Toulmin, 9 Ala. 662; 
Steele r. Kinklo, 3 Ala. 3")-2. 

Conccalmont which amounts to frr.u'l in the sense of a court of equity, 
is the non-disclosure of tho.se facts ami circuui-t.inces which one party 
is under some letral or equitable oblinration to connnunicate, and which 
the other party has a right not merely inforo eonscicntia, hxxijurU et de jure 
to know. Young r. Bunipass, 1 Frecrn. Ch. 241. 

t Farnam v. Brooks, 9 Pick. 212 ; Davidson r. Moss, 4 How. (Miss.) 
C73; Sniolson & Co. r. Franklin, 6 .Munf. 'J 10. 



'.)(> MISUr.rUKSr.NTATlON. 

in rotVrrnco tn tin* jiartit'ular traiisuctitiii,' :iinl sIkhiM iniiro ((» 
tlio ilato 111" it. Il' a jmrfy to a tniiisaction concwils, however 
tnuuluk'iitly, a niatciial lact tiMiii aiiotlur with \\lioiti hi; is 
treatiii::, l>iJt that dtlu-r, ndtwitlistandiiit; the cDiici'ahiK-Mt, j^ets 
at tlu' tart concealed hetore he enters into the transaction, the 
conceahnent f^ocs for nothi.nix. It is of no avail, if the party 
hfts become in any \vi\y acnuainted with tlic tnitli.*'^' Srtr/i/iic 
utrtiujiic jmr jHur/n contrahentcs faeit. The law will not 
interpose, where both ])arties to the transaction are e<pially 
well informed or arc in ecpial ii^norancc as to the actual con- 
dition or value of the subject-matter of the transaction." f 

The ]irincii»les of nmrals rt'i|nire \\un\' sci'iijuduus f^ood 
faith in the dealinj]^ of men with each other than is exacted 
either at law or in eijuity. The writers of the moral law hold 
it to be the duty of the seller to disclose the defects which arc 
within his knowledge* Ihit the common law is not so strict. 
The law aims at practical good and general convenience rather 
than at theoretical perfection. Tt does not ])rofess to vindicate 
everv detlection from ])ropriety, but re<iuires men in their 
dealings with each other to exercise }>roper vigilance and 
apply their attention to those particulars which nuiy be sup- 
posed to be within the reach of their o])servation and judg- 
ment, and not to close their eyes to the means of information 

.115; BowIpb r. Rtnnrt, 1 Scli. A Lcf. * Irvino v. Kirki>!i(riik, 7 Ili-ll, Sc. 

'.J4'.t ; Brviii:<"< v. IJnuitil, 12 Sim. ;t.sJ ; Ap. ISO, "j:;". 

\\\\\U .•"Willi.*, 17 Sim. 'JlS; Kuilton ' Sui,'. V. A- P. 1 ; Kni-^lit v. Mnrjori- 

V. MiiUliews, 10 (1. ii rill. y.M. bimks. 11 IWav. IMS. 'l H. A Tw. 81G. 
' Grec'U v. Gosden, K M. «k G. 110. * (imt. b. 2, c. \'l, s. y. 



♦Clark r. ^Vllit(^ 12 TVt. 178; I'licttiplacc r. Siiylc". A IMii^on, JiI2; 
Pratt r. Pliilbrook, :}:{ Mo. 17. 

t Iloblw c. Parker, IJl M«'. 1 1:!; Dooky r. .limiinir. M'>. <">1 ; IVrkins r. 
McGnvock, Cooke, -tl."). 

There Ih no friiU'lulcnt ronrealment win re ii parly eiilertains suspicions 
merely, but does not po»8Cs» acttiul kno\vk«lge. Crawl'ortl t. Ik-rtliolf, 
baxton, 408. 



Mi«ni:rui:si:NTATi()N. !)7 

^vlli(•ll arc aeccs.si1)l(! 1<» tlicm : vujiUtni'ihuH^ 7um dormientilnifi, 
Jura suhveniunt. If jtartius arc at armts' len/i^tli, cither of 
them may remain sik'nt and avail liimself of his KUj)erior 
knowledi^e as to I'acts and circiiinstaiices equally open to the 
observation of both, or ('([ually within llic reach of thcii* 
ordinary dilii^ence, and is n?idii- no obligation either at law or 
in e(jnity to draw the attention of the other to cirenmstanees 
affeeting the value of the ])roperty in qnestion, although lie 
may know him to bo ignorant of them. If, for example, a 
man treats for tlie ])urchase of an estate, knowing tiiat there 
is a mine under the land, and the other \rM'[y makes no 
inquiry, the former is not bound to inform him of the fjict.^ * 
So also a first mortgagee with power of sale, who has made 
an advantageous contract for the sale of the mortgaged prem- 
ises, may buy up the interest of a second mortgagee who sup- 
posed ,the property was insufficient to pay off both mortgages, 
without informing him of the contract.^ 

' Fox V. Miiorctli. 2 Bro. C. C. 420 ; v. :Mor^'an. '.\ D. F. .t J. 723 ; ArchboM 

Turner i'. Harvev, .lac. nSO, 178; Stike- ?-. Lonl Ilnwtli, Ir. L. K. 2 C. L. 608; 

man v. Dawson. 1 Doi;. & S. 9i) ; Laid- Su- V. .k I'. 1 Itli i-d. 2, 328, 335. 
law »•. Orsan, 2 Wheat. (Anicr.) 178; •' l)oliiian v. Nokcs, 22 Bcav. 402. 

Wilde V. Gib3on, 1 II. L. 605; Walters 



* Smith T. Beatty, 2 Irtd. Eq. 4o6 . Livinfrston v. Peru Iron Co. 2 
Paige, 3C0; Perkins r. ^IcGavock, Cooke, 415 ; Uarris v. Tyson, 24 Penn. 
347; Bullcr's Ajipeal, 2() Penn. G3. 

A purchaser is not bound to communicate information concerning ex- 
trinsic circumstances which might influence the price of a commodity 
where the means of intelligence are equally accessible to both parties. 
But, at the same time, each party must take care not to say or do anything 
tending to impose upon the other. Laidlaw r. Organ, 2 Wheat. 178; 
Matthews r. Bliss, 22 Pick. 48; Kintzing r. McElrath, 5 Barr, 467; :SIerri- 
weather r. Ilerran, 8 B. Mon. 1G2 ; Bowman r. Bates, 2 Biljb, 47 ; contra, 
Frazier r. Gcrvais, "Walker, 72. 

The tenants in common of a vessel, who are not engaged jointly in the 
employment of purchasing or building ships for sale, do not stand in such 
a relation of mutual trust and confiilence to each other in respect of the 
sale of such vessel, tliat each is bound to communicate all the information 
of focts within his knowledge, which may affect the price. Matthews r. 
Bliss, 23 Pick. 48. 



OS M ISKKrRESENTATIOK. 

A vrrv little, lio\vi-vrr, is Hiitriciotit to aflVct the iqiplication 
..!' tlu' i)i-iniij.li>. If a sinnjlo wonl l>c <lr..j'iti-<l l.y a i.urc-lia>^or 
wliich tomls to luislcaii the vcii«li«r, the ]>iiiici|>l(' will ii<>t hi' 
ullowcil to oiK-rati'.' "A siiij^Mc word," saitj I.(»r«l ("aiiii>bc'll, 
ill Walters r. ^Iorij:aii,' ''or even a nod, (»r a wink, or a shako 
of the head, or a smile from the purehaser, intended to indnee 
the vendor to believe the existence of a non-e.\istin_«; fact which 
mi<;ht intluencc the priee of the subject to be sold, is a fraud 
at hnv. So d fortiori would a contrivance on the part of the 
purchaser better informed than the vendor of the real value of 
the subject to be sold, to hiinv the vendor into an agreement 
without i,n\ ini,' hiia the (ip|ii>rtuiiit y of beiui,' fully informed of 
its real value, or time to deliberate and take advice respecting 
the conditions of the bargain.'' If a purchaser conceal the fact 
of the death or dangerous illness of a person of which the 
seller is ignorant, and by which the value of the property is 
materially increased, there is fraud.^ 

A vendor may not, on the other hand, use any art or prac- 
tise any artifice to conceal defects, or make any representation 
for the purpose of throwing the buyer off his guard. If he 
says or does anything whatever with an intention to divert the 
eye or obscure the observation t»f the buyer even in relation to 
open defects, there is fraud.** As, for e.\am])le, where a man 
having a log of mahogany to sell, turned it over so as to con- 
ceal a hole in the underneath side.' So also where a man sold 

•Turnor v. Ilarvoy, Jac. ir.U, 178; Kci-no, 2 Moo.it Hob. 819. See Fop- 

Doliiion r. NukeM, '.i'i'Hi-iiv. 4ii2. Si'i? l.uin v. Hrooki'. Ti IIihh. '.». 

liavk'H r. Cooprr. :. M. A C -i?'*; Bl.iko ' Hill r. Uray. 1 Mark. 134 ; rillinoro 

f .Mowatt, 'Jl l}<nv. Cuta; Caiiaock «. •'. llooil. ft Hiiifr. N. *'. i'7 ; Di.b.ll r. 

Jaimcev. •.:7 L. J.rh. 57. Strv(.ns. :{ W. &. r. 02:1; liilworda f. 

» :i l") F. <1: .1. 7'.:l. Wickwar. L W. \ Kt|. «>s. 

•Turii.T r. Ilarv.-y..Iac. If.'.t; Kllunl » lili-ll .•. .Mli.Tloii. 7 H. «k N. 172. 
r. Llandufr. 1 Ha. tt" \W. -.ill ; .lories t». 



• Iloii^'h r. llichanlHon, H Starj-, GOO; Doggott r. Emerson, :]Sl«ry, 732; 
Daniel v. .Mitchell, 1 Story, ITi. 



MISREPRESENTATION. 00 

a vessel "with all laults," ami, In I'l'i-c f lie Bale, took licr fnu ii tin; 
ways on \\liifli sin; lay and kept licr allo:it in a dock in order 
to j)rc'vi'nt an examination (jf her lioflom, which he knew to he 
unsound, the purchaser was hold entitled to avoid the sale on 
account ol" iVaud.' 

So also it" a vemlor were ti> describe the ]»ro|terty as let 
upon lease under certuiu specified covenants, benelieial to the 
reversion, which however he knew could not be enforced, this 
would probably be considered delusive.'^ So also it" a vendor 
knowing of an incumbrance on an estate sells without dis- 
closing the fact, and with knowledge that the purchaser is ii 
stranger to it, and under representations inducing him to Ijuy, 
he acts fraudulently and violates integrity and fair dealing.' 
The same rule ap})lies to the case where a ])arty pays money in 
ignorance of circumstances with which the receiver is ac- 
(piainted, and does not disclose, and wliicli, it' disclosed, woidd 
have i)revcnted the payment. In that c-aso the parties do not 
deal on equal terms, and the money is held to be unfairly ol>- 
tained and may be recovered back.* 

So also, and upon the same principle, there is fraud, if a 
man wishing to advance an undertaking, in which he was inter- 
ested, determines to purchase shares in it, and another pei-son, 
also interested in the undertaking, takes advantage of the 
knowledge he possesses of the intention of the former to defeat 
the particular act, whereby he sought to accomplish liis object, 
and to substitute in the place of it a mode of disposing of a 
portion of his own interest in the undertaking.^ 

Mere reticence does not amount to a legal fraud, however 



• Bairleholc v. Walters, 8 Camp. 154 ; * 1 Veg. 90, per Lord Ilnnlwicke. 

Schneider v. Heatli, ih. 50fi. See I'iclv- * Martin v. .Morj^an, 1 Brod. <fc Bing. 

crinsj v. Dowson, 4 Taunt. 784 ; Kain v. 2S9. See Ileane v. liogers, 9 B. i C. 

Oldi 2 B. «fc C. 034 ; Taylor v. Bullen, 5 677, per Bavley, J. 

Exch. 779. * Blake i-." Mowalt, 21 Beav. 614 

'' Flint V. Woodin, 9 Ua. 621. 



1(H) MlSRKrilKSKNTATloN. 

it ui:\\ bo vii'Wi'd Ity iimralists. Mitlirr p.irtv niav lie iiuioccMitly 
silent as ti* ijrtMuxl nj.cu i.. linth to oxcrcise tlit-ir jiul;;iuciit 
ujioii. It' the jiarties uvv at anii>' K'liirtli iicitlicr ol" llii-m is 
uiuivT any ol»lii;ati»»ii to call the attention ot'tlie oj^josite l>arty 
to farts or eireninstanccs which lie ])nij)erly within his knowl- 
edge, althouirh he may sec that they are n(»t actually within liid 
knowle(l<xe.* T.ut a man may l»y mere silence, without active 
concealment, i)ro(luce a false impressinn on the mind of another. 
Ah'ud ed cdare, aliud tacevc ; nequc enim id est afdre, quio- 
(jiiid ret i eras ; tied cuin^ quod tic sc'ias^ id i(jnorare, euwlu- 
mentl ini caum^ veils ens qnornm intersit id scire? Silence 
implies assent wlien tliere is a duty to speak. Qui ta^Jct con- 
sentire vkh'tur ; qui jwtest et debet vetare, juhet.' If a man 
by his silence i)roduces a false impression on the mind of 
another, there is a fraud.* In Hill v. Gray,' where a man 
bought a picture un<ler a delusion as to the ownership of it, 
and the a^^ent of tlie vendor encouraged tlie delusion and took 
advantasre of it in effecting a sale, Lord Ellenborough held the 
contract might be avoided on the ground of fraud.' 

If a man interested is present and hears any false or imper- 
fect representation made, and does not set it right, he is fixed 
by the representation.' 

A vendor is by tlie civil law bound to warrant the thing ho 
sells or conveys, albeit tliere be no express warranty; but the 
common law binds him not, unless there be a warranty either 
in deed or law. Caveat emptor is the ordinary rule of the 

' ArdihoM »•. Lord H<iwtli, L. U. Ir. * Soo infra. 

'2. C L. ftos. Sec WnltiTS r. Mor^jau, :< ' 1 Stark. ■«:!». 

J) F. A J. 7".i'l. ' J^'"*' Ki'atL-.s r. Lord C'adosjan, 10 C. 

' ( ic.T«. <!.• oflic. lih. .'{. rlinp. I'l, j>rr IJ. fi<M). 

Iy(.rd Maiii.fi.ld, :i Hiirr. l'J\*K jx-r Lord ' Sliuplierd r. Sliar|)o. 4 L. T. 'J70; 

AliinuiT, ft M. ik W. riHl ; NfltlinriK! r. Dnvi.-H v. Dnvit-s, .liir. N. S. 13*22. 

Ilol^juU', 1 Coll. Til.jfr Kiii^hl Hriicc, St-o Sinitlj r. Hank of Scotland. 1 Dow. 

1^,1. l!7'i; Warner v. DanicU, 1 Wood (& 

• Moriran v. Evanti. n CI «t Fin. iJOS; Mia. (Amcr.) 90. 
liurkc t'. I'rior. 15 Ir. Ch. 100. 



"M I S i; I : I'K i:SKNTATin\. ] 1 

coiiminii law.'* Il' tlic (iL'llrt.s in llic Kuliject-iiialtor of sale 
are i)ateiit, or biich as iiiii^^lit. and >li..iiM \„- (Iisc(ivcrc(l hv flio 
exercise of ordinary vi:,dlaiKa', and the l)nvfr lias an opportnnif y 
of inspedini,' it, tlie law dues nnt re(|nire the ncller to aid and 
assist tlie observation <»f the j»urchaser. f Even a warranty 
Mill not cover delects that are jtlaitdy the ohjects of sense.^ 
Defects, liowever, wliicli are latent," or eirciiin.stances materially 
the snhjcct-matter of sale of whicli the jinrchaser lias no means, 
or at least has not e<iual means of obtainini^^ knowled^'e, must, 
if known to the seller, be disclosed. Where, ibr instance 
particulars of sale described the subject of sale as a certain 
interest, if any, the vendor knowin<^ at the time that it was of 
no value, whereas the purchaser had no means of ascertain in i; 
whether it was of any value or not, the transaction was held 
fraudulentf So also on the sale of a ship, which had a latent 
defect known to the seller, and whicli the buyer could not by 
any attention possibly discover, the seller was lield bound to 
disclose it." So also where a man sold an estate to another 
knowing or having reason to know at the time, but concealiu"- 
the fact that part of the land was an encroachment upon a com- 
mon to which he had no title, the sale was set aside as having 
been effected by fraud.* So also if one of the parties to a 
transaction knows that the solicitor of the other party lias not 

'Co. Litt. 102 a, Uob. 99, Broom's = Melli-h ?•. Mottcu.\, Peake, ISfi. 

Leg. Max. 739. ♦ Smith r. JIarrisoii, 20 L. J. Ch. 412. 

' Dyt-r V. II irjjrave, 10 Vcs 507; ' Mellisli c. ilotti-ux, Teake, 156. 

Grant r. Munt, (.'oop. 173; Jeniiiiis:^ r. ° Edwards v. M'Cleaj', 2 Sw. 287 
Broii-jhton, 5 I). M. & G. 131 ; Ilorsfall 
V. Thomas, 1 U. <k C. 100. 



* Salem India Rubber Co. v. Adams, 23 Pick. 250 ; "Wintz r. Morrison, 
17 Tex. 372; Cecil v. Spurgcr, 32 Mo. 462; Turner r Hugirins, 14 Ark 
21. 

t Buck ». McCaugbtry, 5 Men. 21G; Bnmctt r. Stanton. 2 Ala. is] ; 
McKinney r. Fort, 10 Tex. 220; LawnsiMi v. Bacr, 7 Jonc*. 401 ; Heading 
V. Price, 3 J. J. Marsb. 01; Cardwell v. McClcUaud, 3 Succd, 150; Barroa 
V. Alexander, 27 :Mo. 530. 



1 (t2 M ISKKrmCSEXTATION. 

ilisc'lost'il to liim some matter of a iiiatcrial nature, the coneeal- 
ment may l»e iVauduleiit.' So also it' a creditor compounds 
witli liis dcl)t(»r under a false impression in wliicli the debtor 
kn(»wini;ly leaves liim as to the extent of tlio debtor's estate, 
there is a fraud.' 

A veJidor, liowever, is not bound to state that the property 
has been recently valued at a sum "greatly less tlian the in- 
tended purchaser's money, or that the tenant has complained 
of the rent as being excessive.' 

A vendor may, on the sale of chattels, exi>ressly stipulate 
that the buyer is to take the chattels "with all faults." In 
such case it is immaterial how many faults there are within his 
knowledge ; but lie may not use any artifice -to disguise them, 
or to prevent the buyer from discovering thcm.^* Upon the 
same principle it would aj)pear that if the defects are of such a 
nature that they cannot be discovered by any attention what- 
ever on the part of the purchaser, the insertion of the condition 
will not excuse the vendor from disclosing those Mithin his 
knowledge.' 

The maxim caveat cmjptor applies with certain specific 
restrictions and qualifications, both to the title and quality of 
the subject-matter of sale. In the case of real estate the 
vendor must produce to the purchaser all documents of title in 
his possession or power, and give information of all material 
facts not apparent thereon.' Any charge n]ion the estate, or 

' Solomon v. llonywood, 12 W. 11. ' I?iii;li'hole v. Walters, .'U'nmp. 164; 

672. Stliiaiilcr v. lU-atli, \b. h^)<\, »upra,\i' 

' Vine r. MiUhell, 1 Muod. <t Kob. US. 

337. • Suff. V. k v. 1 Ith cd. p. 8.13. 

» Abbott r. SworiK-r, 4 Do;,'. d:S.ll'<, • Kdwanis v. .M'l'lony, C(»oj». 308; 

460. Korl'ii \. ii P. 67. 



* TlicHC terms put upon tho jmrclitt.'sor no rl.^k or hazard Imt tliosc wliicli 
arc consi^^tcnt with the properly luin^; Mich hh it is deserilKil. Smith 
r. Hiehiir.lft, 13 Pet. '20; Pcartc f. lilackwcU, 12 Ired. 41); Terry r. Huck, 
1 Grctn'B Ch. UGO. 



MISRKPUKSKNTATinN. lO.T 

rii^lit i-otrictivc of the purcliascr's aliSdliiti; (•iijoyiiiciit of jt, 
and the reli'iiso of which cariiiot Ix; |»r(»ciir('(l hy tli<; vciKhjrK, 
phoiild he stated; or the omission may, in many cases, ren(hT 
the Bale voidahle hy the purchaser;** c. (j. a ri^jjlit of sportiri;^ 
over the estate,"^ a right of common every third year,' a riglit 
to dif^ for mines,* a liahility to repair the cluirch chancel,' or 
any otlier right or liahility wliicli cannot fairly admit of com- 
pensation,® or would render the estate different in suhstancc 
from what the purchaser was justified in helieving it to he,' 
Avouhl, if undisclosed, liavc that effect.^ 

A vendor need not, however, direct attenti<jn to defects, 
&C.J apparent on the title-deeds,^ f or to any matter of which 
the purchaser has actual or constructive notice.*" I3ut if the 
seller he informed hy the purchaser of his ohject in huying, 
and tlie lease contaiiis covenants wliicli defeat that object, mere 
silence is fraudulent concealment.** If there Las been no fraud- 
ulent concealment on the part of the seller, but the title turns 
out to be defective, the rule caveat emptor applies, and the pur- 
chaser has no remedy, unless he take a special covenant or war- 



' Dftrt's V. k p. T3. • Dart's V. A P. 74. 

' Buniell V. Hrown, 1 J. <t W. 172. ' Supra, pp. 58. 63, 64. 

' Gibson )•. Spurrior, Pea. Acl c. 50. ' See, fiirtlier, Dnrt's V. k P. 74, 75. 

♦ Seaman v. Vuwdrcv, 10 Ves. 390. » Sui,'. V. <fc P. 8. 

» Fortcblow V. Sliirlcy, cited 2 Sw. '" Dart's V. <fc P. 57, 74. 

223, " I'light V. Barton, 3 M. <t K. 282. 



* Prout T. Roberts, 32 Ala. 427; Halbcrt r>. Grant, 4 Mon. 580; Ingram 
f. Morgan, 4 Humph. 6G ; Steele r. Kinkle, 3 Ala. 353; Garr t. Cal- 
laglian, 3 Litt. 21G ; Kennedy r. Johnson, 2 Bibb, 12; Campbell v. Whit- 
tingham, 5 J. J. ^larsli. 9G ; Pollard r. Rogers, 4 Call, 239; Snelsbn «k Co. 
r. Franklin, 6 :Munf. 210; Davidson r. iMoss. 4 How. (Miss.) 673. 

If a previous incumbrance is concealed, the fact that it is recorded is 
immaterial. Xapicr r. Elam, G Yerg. lOS ; Young u. Hopkins, G Mon. 23; 
Campbell r. Wiiittingham, 5 J. J. Marsh. 96; Steele r. Kinkle, 3 Ala. 352; 
Kenr.edy c. Johnson, 2 Bibb, 12. 

t Ward r. Packard, 18 Cal. 391 ; Alston v. Outcrbridge, 1 Dcv. Ch. 18. 



101 



MIRREPRKSENTATION. 



rantv.^ * A si-llor selling in ^ood laitli, is nut resjH)nsil)lu lor the 
.■•<Kulnc>:i of tlic title Itcvond the extent of liis eovenants.' 

There is no imitlii'tl warranty on a tlmiisr itf real or Icase- 
hol.l i.ro|»i-rty, lliat it is lit lor the i.nrpi>si's lor which it is 
taken.^ The purchaser takes the risk of its (quality and condi- 
tion, unless he protects himself hy an express apvenient on 
the subject.* There is no inijjlied duty cast on the owner of ft 
house in a ruinous and unsafe condition to inform a proposed 
tenant, that it is unlit for habitation, nor will an action of 
deceit lie aj^ainst him for omittini; to disclose the fact ;' but a 
seller must not, durin-,' a treaty fur, or while intendin<jc a sale, 
endeavor to conceal a defect, or to divert a i)urchaser's atten- 
tion from it.' 

In the case of a sale of goods and chattels, the rule caveat 
emptor applies to the title, unless the seller knows that he has 

• Parkinson v. Lop, 2 East, [^2^, per pell v. Groirory. ^1 IU>av. 250; but peo 

Lawrence, J.; Stepliens »•. Medina, 4 Sinilli i'. Marnible, 11 M. «k W. 6. See 

H. 1{. 42«, Hroom's Lefj. Mnx. 74:5. Broom's Lcl'. Max. 744-746. 

' See IJree v. llolbccli. Douf,'!. f.55. * Iz.m >: (;orton, 5 Binff. N. C. 501 ; 

' Sutton V. Tenii)lo, 12 M. it W. 52; yur})lice v. I'arnswortli, 7 M. it G. 570. 
Hart V. Windsor. 12 M. it W. 08; » Keato.s r. lailoLran. 10 C. B. 6'Jl. 

Keatea v. Cadogau, 10 C. B. 591 ; Cbaiv ' Dart's V. it 1'. 50. 



♦ Abbott v. Allen, 2 Johns. Ch. 519; Chostirman r. Gardner, 5 Johns. 
Ch. 29; WuUare v. Barlow, 3 Bibb, 171 ; Jas))cr r. Hamilton, 3 Dana, 280; 
Manncy r. Porter. 3 Humj)!!. 347; Frost r. Raymond, 2 t'aines, 188; Wil- 
liamson r. Raney, 1 Freem. 112. 

When the vendor knows that tlie property lias no existence, he com- 
mits a fruiid by selling. "WanUU i'. Fosdick. 13 Jolins. 325; Terry r. 
Buck, 1 Green's Ch. 30(5. 

If the v< ndor knows that he has no title, and conceals that tact, tbo 
gale is fraudulent. Chirk r. Bainl, 9 N. Y. 1!^3; Johnson c. Pryor, 5 Hey, 
248; Bcardsley r. Bennett, 1 Duy, H>7. 

If the property is known to the vendor to l)e worthless, he cannot pro- 
tect himself by telling the vendee to in(iuire for him.self. (Terry r. Buck, 
1 Green's Ch. 3r,fl 

A man who buyH a defective title knowini; it to l>e so. must altid<- tlio 
ron»equence«. Williumsou t. Rauey, 1 Fnem. 112; Alien r. Ilopson, 1 
Frcem. 270. 



:siisRi:i'in;si:NTATinN. IO5 

no title and conceals the I'act, or unless tin; HiirnMindin;^ '"i'"- 
cmnstanccs of the c:i.se are Hiieh that a damnify niuv Ik; im- 
])lie<l.'* Ill the ordinary case, for instance, of the sale of 
goods in 11 shoi), there is a warranty of title, for the seller, by 
the very act of selling, holds himself out to the buyer tiiat he 
is the owner of the articles he oilers for sale.^ If, however, 
the surrounding circunistanees are such that the seller must he 
taken to be merely selling such a title as he has himself iu the 
goods, the maxim applies, and there is no warranty of title." 

The question as to the aj)plication of the maxim caveat 
emptor on the sale of goods in respect to the quality of the 
goods, M-as elaborately considered by the Court of Queen's 
Bench in a very late case.* The cases on the subject were dis- 
tinguished as falling under five diflerent heads : 

' Mnrlcv I'. AUonhorovii^h, :} Excli. Clmpmnn v. Sjiellir, 14 Q. B. 621 ; 

r.OO; Hall c. Con.liT, 2 t'.'^IJ. N. S. -JO; Sims v. Mnnynit, 17 (2. B. 2'.ti ; Baguc- 

Eichholtz r. Bnniiister, 17 C. B. N. S. K-y v. Ilawk'y, L. H. 2 C. P. G2i>. tiee 

■^OS. Eichlioltz V. Bannister, 17 C. B. N. S. 

' Eicliholtz I'. Bannister, 17 C. B. N. 708. 

S. 708. ^ Jones v. Ju.-,t, L. R. 3 Q. B. 107, 

* Marloy v. Attonborough, 3 Exch. 202. 
500; Hall v. CondL-r, 2 C. B. N. S. 22; 



* It is a general and familiar principle that there exists in every sale of 
lursonal property an implied warranty of title. Mo(kl)tc r. Gardner 2 
II. ^ G. 177 ; Boyd v. Bopst, 2 Dall. 91 ; Coolidge r. Bri,i,diara, 1 Met. 551 ; 
Lamis r. Auld, 7 Murph. 138; Dean r.M:i.son, 4 Ct. 428 ; Paynes. Rodden 
4 Bibb, 304 ; Ileiiuance v. Vemoy, G Johns. 8 ; Case r. Hall, 29 Wend. 
103; Colcock o. Reed, 3 McCord, 513; Dorsey v. Jackman, 1 S. & R. 42; 
Strong t. Baracs, 11 Vt. 221 ; Chandler r. WiL'gins, 4 B. ]Mon. 201. 

When tlie vendor is in possession of the property sold, there is an im- 
j.lied warranty of title. Long r. Ilickinghottom. 28 Miss. 772; Robinson 
;-. Rives, 20 Mo. 229; Huntington v. Hall, 30 Me. 501 ; McCoy v. Artchcr, 
3 Barb. 323; Coleock p. Reed, 3 McCord, 513; Reed e. Barl)er, 5 Cow.' 
272; Norton r. Hooten, 17 Ind. 365 ; Sherman r. Champlain Trans. Co. 31 
Vt. 162 ; Scranton r. Clark, 39 Barb. 273. 

This implied warranty extends to a prior lien or incumbrance. Maine 
V. King, 8 Barb. 535. 

When the vendor is not in possession of the goods, the purchaser buys 
at his peril, unless there is an express warranty of title. Edick r, Crim. 
10 Barb. 445 ; Lackey t. Stouder, 2 Ind. 370 ; Scott tj. IIi.\, 3 Sneed. 192, 
8 



1 0(J MlSUKPRKSEXTATloN. 

" 1st. Wliorc i^oods arc in i'f<m\ and may l>t* inspected by 
tl»e Imycr, ami there is no fraud on the part of the seller, tho 
maxim citrtutt <'mj>for aj)plies, even th(»uu:h the defect is latent, 
and not di-coverahh' <>n exaiiiiiiation, at least where the seller 
is neither the iiianiit'actiirer iior tho grower.' The Imyer, in 
8uch ease, has the (»j)portunity of excrcisin;^; his jnd;;nient 
upon the matter; and if the result of the inspection be un- 
patisfactorvj or if he distrusts his own judgment, ho may, if he 
chooses, recjuire a warranty. In sucii a case it is not an im- 
plied term i>f' the contract of sale that the goods are of any 
particular (juality, or are merchantable.'* 

" 2ndly. "Where there is a sale of a detinite existing chattel 
specifically described, the actual condition of which is capable 
of being ascertained by either party, there is no implied 
warranty.' f 

" .'Jrdly. AVliere a known, described and defined article is 
ordered of a manufacturer, although it is stated to be required 
by the purchaser for a i)articular purpose, still if the known, 
described and defined thing be actually supplied, there is no 

' Parkinson v. Loo, 2 Ea.'^t, 15 14. * Barr v. Gibson, 3 M. A W. 390. 

* Eiuiiiertoii t'. Muttlicws, 7 11. «fc N. 
586, 31 L. J. Exth. lU'J. 



* Stevens r. Smith, 21 Vt. 00 ; 0.«goocl r. Lewis, 2 IT. & G. 400 ; John- 
Bton r. Cope, 2 II. & J. 89 ; Williams r. Stoujrliton, 3 Miss. 347; Kiiijrs- 
l.iirj' r. Taylor, 2U Mc. TiOS; Scott r. Ronick, 1 B. Mon. 63; Mi.xer r. Co- 
l)Um. 11 Met. r)r)9; Hiclianlson r. Johnson, 1 La. An. 38Si. 

Tlie exception only applies to those cases where the inspection is im- 
practicable, as where fiood.'i are sold l)elore their arrival or landinfj. Tho 
mere fact tliat inspection i.s attended with inconvenience or lahor, is not 
equivalent to im|»nuticability. Hyatt r. Boyle, 5 G. &. J. 110. 

In every executory contract for the future saU' and <lelivery of articles 
of mercban<lise. tlie law clearly ini|)iits an aj;reement that the j;oods shall 
l)C of a merchantable value. Hamilton r. (lanyard, 31 Harli. 204. 

t Williams r. Slaujjhler, 3 Wirt. 347; Deminp r. K«)ster, 42 N. H. 10.>; 
DickenH r. Jordan, 11 Ired. 106; Giiion r. Levy, 2 Duer, 170; Carson c. 
Bailie, 19 Pcnn. 375. 



MISREPRESENTATION. lf)7 

•warranty that it shall answer the partiriilar purpose intcn<lt 'I 
hy the Itiiyer.' 

"4thly, AVlierc .1 luamifacturer or (h-alcr cuiitraets to .-up 
j)ly an article which lie manufactures (»]• produces, or in which 
lie deals, to be applied to a particular purpose, so that the 
buyer necessarily trusts to the judi^nient or skill of the manu- 
facturer or dealer, there is in that case an inijdied term or war- 
ranty that it shall be reasonably fit for the purpose to which it 
is to be applied.'^* In such a ease, the buyer trusts to the 
manufacturer or dealer, and relies upon his judfrment and not 
U]ion liis own. 

"5thly. Wliere a manufacturer undertakes to supply goods 
manufactured by himself, or in which he deals, but which the 
vendee has not had the opportunity of inspecting, it is an im- 
plied term in the contract that he shall supply a merchantable 
article.* So, also, on a sale by a merchant to a merchant or 
dealer, mIio has had no opportunity of inspection, there is an 
implied warranty that the article shall be reasonably fit for the 
purpose for which it is supplied.* In every contract to supply 
goods of a specified description, which the buyer has no op- 
portunity of inspecting, the goods must not only in fact 
answer the specific description, but must also be saleable and 
merchantable under that description.'"' 

' Chanter )'. Hopkins. 4 M. ifc W. 399 ; Taunt. 108; Sliophenl r. Tybus 3M 

Ollivant V. Bayley. 5 Q. B. 28«. & G. SOS. 

» Brown c. Edijinixton. 2 :M. <t G. ♦ Bi-^^e v. Parkinson. 7 H. (fc N. 950 ; 

279; Jones v. AVriglit, 5 Binir. 53:{. 31 L. J. Excli. 3(tl. 

'Laing v. Fidgeon, 4 Cauip. 109, 6 'Jones v. Just, L. R. 3 Q. B. 197. 



* Brenton v. Davis, 8 Blackf. oOS ; Beers r. William?. IG III. 00; Wal- 
ton v. Cody, 1 Wis. 420; Brown i\ .Alurplice, :}! Miss. 91 ; Cunninirham r, 
Hull, Sprague, 404; Iloe r. SanI)ora, 21 N. Y. 552; Rodrrers r. Nilcu. 11 
Ohio St. R. 48; Page r. Ford, 42 Ind. 46 ; Howard v. Iloey. 23 Wend. 
350; Miner v. Granger, 4 Oilman, (lO; Taylor r. Sands. 5 Johns. 403; 
Overton r. Phclan, 2 Head, 445; Fisk r. Tank, 12 Wis. 27G; Pease v. 
Sabin, .38 Vt. 432; Freeman v. Clut^, 3 Bar!). 421 ; Gallagher r. Waring. 9 
"Wend. 20 ; Getty r. Rountrce, 2 Cband. 28. 



HUS MlSKl.l'Kl-.Sr.NTATlON'. 

Till' rule cav'^f « /nj>f",' rmuIits it lawful for a man Ijoldin*; 
Bliares in nn insolvent i'i)nij)any to sell them to any one willing 
to btiy them, nn<l in the nhsence of misrejiresentation l)y the 
Feller, the buyer is ai>]>:ir(ntly without any niucdy against 

l.ilM.* 

The mere omission of a purchaser of iinijxity to disclose 
his insolvency to the vendor, is not a fraud for which the sale 
may be avoided. If no imiuirics are made, and the vendee 
makes no false statements, nor resorts to any artifice or con- 
trivance for the purpose of misleading the vendor, it is not 
in general fraudulent in him to remain silent as to his pecun- 
iarv condition. An honest though abortive purpose to con- 
tinue in business, and pay for the goods, is consistent with the 
vendee's knowledge of his oM-n insolvency.* Hut there may 

' >eo Uemfrej- v. Cutler, El. Bl. d: El. 887 ; Stray i-. Ru&^ell. 1 EI. d- El. 888. 



♦Cross r. Peters. 1 Grecnl. 378; Nichols r. Pinner, 18 N. Y. 295 ; 
BMault r. Wales, 19 Mo. 36 ; 8. c. 20 Mo. 540 ; Mitclull r. "Wordcn, 20 
Barb. 253; Iltnshaw r. Bryant, 4 Scam. 97. 

When a person, who knows himself to be insolvent, by means of fraiid- 
nlont pretences or representations, obtains possession of ^'oods nmler a 
itretencc of purchase with the intention not to pay for them. Init with the 
design to cheat the vendor out of them, a court of chancery will set aside 
tije sale if they have not passed into the hands of a homi jiilt^ purchaser ; 
or the vendor m;ij' brins,' replevin or trover tor them. Durell r. Haley, 1 
Paijre, 492 ; Lupin r. Marie, 2 Paige, 172 ; Lloyd r. Brewster, 4 Paige, 541 ; 
Van Cliff r. Fleet, 15 Johns. 147; Allison r. Matthieu, 3 John.-*. 235; 
Howley c. Big«low. 12 Pick. 312; Hitchcock r. Covill, 20 Wend. 107; Ask 
,. Putnam, 1 Hill. :Kl2 ; Root r. Frencii. 1.) Wend. 570; Zaiiriskie r Smith, 
13 N. Y. 330; Hunter r. Hud-^on River Iron Co., 20 Barb. 493. 

In order to render a sale void on account of misrepresentations as to 
Kolvencv, such a case must l>e made out as would authorize a jury to con- 
vict the purchaser of obtaining goods under fal.s*' pretences. The means 
Ui«etl to «h-fraud nui'*t l»e such that a num of ordinary prudence would be- 
come th«- <lu|w of the decejition. Henshaw r. Bryant. 4 Scam. 37. 

A purchase by a p<Tsf)n who knows himself to Ik- insolvent, and lia.s no 
reoaonablo expectation to pay for tin- goods, is fra\idulent. Powell p. 
Bradlec, 9 G. & J. 220: Chaffee c. Fort, 2 Lan.s. 81 ; Seliginan r. Kalkman, 



MTSREPRKSKNTATION. 101> 

be circMiiiistaiiccs midcr wlndi flu; (•<iiirc;iliiicMf of a iiiatcri;il 
and sutMcii cliaiiirr in the circiiiMBtanceH nl" a i.iircliaser which 
he has reason In .'^nppDsi' to hu unknown to a vend(jr, niav 
iiinount t(.) a Iraud.* A dealer, Ibr inhtance, wlio lias been of 
kn(«wn standing:, but has puddeidy failed in busincHs, cannot 
go to those who were acciuaintcd wifji his former position, l)iit 
have not heard of liis failurc, and innoeentlv ]iun liase ])ro])- 
crty on credit.* So, also, there is fraud if a vendee obtain 
goods upon credit, witli a preconceived fraudulent design not 
to pay for tlieni.^ * 

' Nicliols f. Tinner, 4 Smith (AnuT.) » Brown c. Montgonicrv. C Sniifh 

2!ir>; IJrown v. Montgomery, 6 Smith (Amor.) '-'^7. 
(Amer.)287. Mlcnnfriuin v. Xaylor, 10 Smith 

(AniLT.) 140. 



8 Cnl. 207 ; Conyers r. Ennis, 2 Mason, 236 ; Rowley ;-. Bigelow, 12 Pick. 
307 ; contra, Biggs v. Barry, 2 Curt. 259 ; llall v. Xaylor, Ducr, 71. 

A contract is not invalidated liecause one party is mistaken in re<»ar:l 
to the solvency of the other; nor is a mutual mistake as to the solvency 
of the vendee, sufficient. Lupin r. Marie, 6 Wend. 77. 

The sale is void if the i)urchaser is insolvent at the time of receiving 
the good.s. Pike v. "Wieting, 49 Barl). 314. 

There is a very broad line of distinction, both in morals and law, be- 
tween the conduct of one who gets property into his possession with a 
preconceived design never to pay for it under color of a formal sale 
induced by a sham promise to pay, which the party never intends to com- 
ply with, and the conduct of a man deeply involved in deljt, far, i)crhaps, 
beyond his means of ])ayment, and who struggles, it may be, and fre- 
quently is, against all rational hope to sustain liis credit, buys ])roperty on 
a ])roniise to pay for it on short time in order to raise money from day to 
daj', to meet immediate and more pressing demands. Bidault r. "Wales. 
20 Mo. 546. 

When a person has committed an open and notorious act of insolvencv, 
it is his duty to communicate that fact to parties with whom he has i)ri- 
viously dealt liefore he makes a new jnirchase. and the violation of such 
duty is a fraud. :Mitchell r. Worden, 20 Barb. 2.';3; Pequcno r. Taylor, 33 
Barb. 375 ; Chaffee v. Fort, 2 Lans. 81. 

* Henncquin r. Naylor, 24 X, Y. 139 ; Durell »•. Haley, 1 Paige. 492 ; 
Harris r. Alcock, 10 G. & J. 220; Lane i\ Robinson, 18 B. Mon. 623; 
Buckley v. Artcher, 21 Barb. 585; Mackinley r. McGregor, 3 "Whart. 369; 



* 



110 MISRErUKSENTATION. 

Tlio s;um' nilcs as to falsf jind ilt'fri>tivo t;t:itcincnt.><, which 
are appliraMo to contracts bctwoon individnals, are also api)li- 
cablc to contracts between an inilividiial and a ctnnpany. No 
misstatement or concealment ol" any material tact or circum- 
stances onj^lit to be permitted in a prospectus to invite j)ersons 
to become sbarebolders in a projected com})any. The public, 
who are invited by a ]irospcctus to join in any new adventure, 
ou^dit to have the sami- opportunity of jud_Lrin.L; of evcrythiuf^ 
which has a material hearini^ on its true character, as the pro- 
moters themselves possess. The promoters of comj^anies, who 
invite persons to take shares on the faith of representations 
contained in prospectuses, are bound to state everything with 
strict and scrupulous accuracy, and not only to abstain from 
statinir as a fact that whieh is not so, but to omit no one fact 
within their knowledge, the existence of which might in any 
way atiect the nature, or extent, or quality of the privilege or 
advantage which the prospectus holds out as an inducement to 
take shares. It cannot ])e too strongly pressed upon those 
who, having projected an imdertaking, are desirous of obtain- 
ing the co-operation of persons who have no other information 
on the subject than that which they choose to convey, that the 
utmost candor and honesty ought to characterize their pub- 
lished statements.* It is not merely by one or two statements 
in the prospectus wliicli are nut borne out by the tacts, that 

' New Hriinswick, Ac. Unilway To. Kisch, L. R. 2 App. Ca. 113. 114. See 

f. Mt«r!;fiiil;Ci'. 1 I>r. «t Sni. :jh1,":{H2 ; Ktiit r. Frooliolcl l.nud and Rriok- 

Uo U.m-hh KivcT silver Miniii'.; ('<>., iiiiikinf; Co., L. K. 4 lui. .'.'.»'.'; HciuI.t- 

Smiilt'M (":»««', L K. 2 <'li. App. Wi; hoii i: Lacon. L. U. r. K<i liO'J ; L'hcstor 

Ccutral i::iilway <'o. of Vfuzuela v. v. Spargo, IG W. U. 57(i. 



eontrn. IJuckcntoss r. S|>cirluT 31 Pcnn. 321; Smith r. Smitli. 21 Pcnii. 

:JC7. 

Tl«c intention never t<» pay for j^oods nuiy he evidenced l)y a resale of 
theui at M Kacrllicc, an aHsij^nnient in in>«>lveney. or to a favored creditor, 
or other eireum^tanres. Ilidault r,. Wales, 1» Mo. :16; Ilenncquin v. Nay- 
lor, 21 N. Y. la!'; Maekinley c. McOrcgor, 3 Whart. 300. 



MISUKrUKSKNTATIOX. Ill 

the in,itt(M" (lui^'lit to he fric(l, Imt hj the comltiiicd effect of 
tliciii all, producing a result wliicli would luive misled any per- 
son who took shares on the faith of the i)ros])('ctus.' Thoni,di 
certain statements or su])j)rc'ssioiis standing alone, mi^ht not 
be suflieient ground to i^ivc a man a i-ii^ht to have a transac- 
tion set aside, yet another part (»t' the case may lead to a 
(liferent conclusion, and reflect upou the general fairness of 
the ])ros{)ectus, even in those ])articnlars.^ That a man, who 
was induced to take shares by misrepresentation or conceal- 
ment, was actually a mend)er of the comj)any at the tin>e, is 
immaterial; but it is material that to relieve him from the 
transaction would prejudice the interests of an innocent share- 
liolder who had ac(]uircd them after he ]ia<l l)ecome a share- 
holder.^ 

Those who, having a duty to perform, represent to those 
who arc interested in the ])erf(jrmance of it, that it has been 
performed, make themselves responsible for all the conse- 
quences of the non-performance.* 

The false and fraudulent representations of an agent, when 
acting within the scoi)e of his authority, bind the principal.' 
A man cannot take any benefit under false and fi-auduleiit rep- 
resentation made by his agent, although he may have been no 
party to the representations, and may not liave distinctly 

authorized them.^* In respect of the liability of a princi})al 
t 

* Central Riiilwav Co. of Venezuela «'. Hiclies. 10 C. B. 104; Whoclt<in j- 
Kisch, L. U. 2 App. Ca. 125. Ilnnlistj' 8 E. <t B. 2:52. 260; Udell v. 

' ]h. 117. Atherton. 7 H. <fc N. 173. 

» Western Bank of Scotland V. A<ldie, * Nicoll's Case, 3 D. «t J. 387, 437, 

L. R. 1 Sc. App. Ca. 103. per Turner, L. J.; Udell r. Atherton,' 

* Blair v. Bromley, 2 Ph. 3Gi>, y)er 7 II. (t N. 172, ;>er rollock, C. B, <t 
Lord Cottenhain. Wilde, J. ; New Brunswick, Ac., liail- 

» Wibon V. Fuller, 3 Q. B. 77 ; Blair way Co. v. Conyheiirc, 9 II. L. 714, 720, 
)■. Bromley, 2 I'b. 350; Coleman v. per Lord Wastbury, il/. IS'J ; per Lord 



♦ElwcU V. Chamberlain, 31 N. Y. Gil; Mitrhell v. Minis. 8 Tex. 6; 
Mundorf r. Wickcrsham, H'.i Pcnn. 87; Bennett ,-. .Jud><)n, 21 X. Y. 238- 
Lobdell r. Baker, 1 Met. 11)3; Lawrence r. Hand, 23 Mi>.-<. 105; Concord 



ir_> misk::i'1ii:s:;ntati()N'. 

for tlu' acts of his ai^oiit, ilono in the course of his master's 
business, and for liis master's benefit, no sensiblo distinction 
ean be tlraun bi-tweeii the ease of fraud and any oihi-r wroiiir.* 
A mail caiiMot ad.)|>t and take the bciietit of a eontraet 
entered into by his airent, and repudiate the fraud on whieli it 
was built. If the ai^'ent, at tlie time of the eontraet, makes 
anv representation or deehiration toueliinu: the suliject-mattcr, 
it is the representation and deehiration of the; principal. The 
statements of the agent which are involved in the contract, as 
its foundation or inducement, arc in law the statements of the 
princijial. The principal caiuutt separate the contract itself 
from that by wliich it was induced. lie must adopt the whole 
contract, including,' the statements and representations which 
induced it, or must repudiate the contract altoijether.' It 
would be inconsistent with natural justice, to i)ermit a man to 
retain property ac<piired throUi,di the medium of false repre- 
sentations made by his a-^ent, alth<»Ui:h he was no party to 
them, or di-l not authorize them.^* If an agent employs 



Cranworth. Sec Arclibold v. Lord pn- Tollock. C. B., <t Wil.lo. B. ; ex-parle 

Hovvth L. R. Ir. 2 C L. <>08 ; but see Gin:,'tr. 5 Ir. Cli. IT J ; Hiirwick >: Ensj- 

\Vilde V Gib-<(in, 1 II. L. CO.). See, lish Joint Stock Himk. L. JJ. '2 K.\i-h. 

however Su"-. LI'. Cll; Uevnell v. 2C5. Soo Arclibold r. Lonl Howth, L. 

Sprve. 1 1>. "m. «k (i. <'S4. j,rr' IWi^ht U. Ir. 2 (". L. •'.itS; lomp. Solomon v. 

Brii" C-' L. J., coniiiiunting on Wilde c. Iloiiywooil, 12 W. 11. .'.72. 
^... ' * New I'.niii.swiek, itc, Co. r. Cony- 

'"'uarwick »•. En;;lisb Joint Stock bcnre. '.• 11. L. 711; Western Hnuk of 

Bank L U 2 K.\eb."^2il."). See Hern v. Scolluntl r. Addle. L. 11. 1 Se. Ap^ ("a. 

^•icb<iils 1 Salk. 2.S'... ir>y; Oakes ... Turquaud, L. U. 2 App. 

» rdell f. Atberton, 7 II. it N. 181. Ca. 325. 



Bink T. Grc"},', 14 N- H. :V.',\ ; Bowers p. .Icdui-^on. 10 Smcd. A Miir. 109; 
MuBon r. Cr(^?>y, 1 Woo.l & Min. :M2 ; Morton r. Scull, 2:1 Ark. 2S'J; Gris- 
wobl r. Haven, 25 N. Y. .ly,'). Graves p. Spier, 58 Barb. ;MS). 

A rejin-sentution by an a^jent that a certain fiurt h not known to him, 
ifl not a «lenial of the exiHtcnre of the fact or of tiie knowledj^e of his 
principal conceniini; it. ('..ddin^^ton r Go.blanl, 10 <5ray, 4:»0. 

♦ Fit/^-iramons r. Jonlin. '21 Vt. 120; Ven/.ie r. Williams, H IT..w. i:U; 
Crocker c. Lewis, a Bumncr, b; Bowers c. JohnMiii, 10 Smcd. & ^lar. IGU; 



MISREPRESENTATION. 1 1 .'5 

anollier person to make rcpreseiitatioiifi, it is tlie Bamc as if the- 
representations hml hi-cn inadL- \>y liiui.' 

Til Cornf'oot v. Fowke," a man had cm])l(»ye<l an a;;unt lor 
the sile of ]»roj)urty, wlio in the eoursu of the treaty fur sale 
made material rei)resentations respecting the property, whieli 
lie hoiiotly hclicved to he true, thoiii,di they were i'alse in fact 
and false to the ki'.uwled^e of the j»rineii»al ; there hein^, 
however, no evidence to show a frainluleiit jMii'pose on tin; 
part of the i)rincipal, it was held that fraud and covin coid<I 
not be pleaded in bar to an action by him on the contract. It 
was a<linitted, In^wever, in the jud^'inent that if a j)riMeij)al 
with knowledge of a fact material to the enjoyment of proj>- 
erty employs an agent, whom he knows to be ignorant of 
that feet for the purpose of concealing it, he could not 
be permitted to avail himself of that concealment. Lord 
Abinger, C. !>., differed from the m .jority of the court, being 
of opinion that if a principal employs an agent to sell prop- 
erty, and such agent in the course of his employment makes 
false representations j-especting the property, he cannot take 
advantage of a contract induced by such representations, 
whether the agent was authorized by him or not to make the 
representations. 

Cornfoot v. Fowkc has been the subject of much comment. 
It has been explained by Lord Cran worth, in Xational Ex- 
change Company v. Drew,^ and IJartlett v. Salmon/ and by 
"Willes, J., in Burv.-ick v. English Joint Stock Bank,^ as hav- 
ing turned on a point of pleading. Lord St. Leonards ac- 



' Western Bank of Scotland v. Addie, ' 2 Mncq. 108. 

L. R. 1 Sc. Ap. 159. * <•. I). M. it G. 89. 

n M. d: W. 358. * L. U. 2 Exch. 262. 



Hunt V. :Moorc, 2 Barr, 105 ; Hunter v. Hudson Riv. Iron Co. 20 Barb. 493 ; 
Franklin r. Elzell, 1 Sneed, 497. 



114 MlSUlCrUKSENTATION. 

i-c'j»U>cl the explauution, but appaivntly witli n«liu-t;uioe, in 
Nati»<iial Kxcliaiiixe Company v. Drew.' He stated it to be 
his opiniiin that tlie hiw will reacli the ease of a person 80 
avjiilin:; hiniself of the ini.srei)resentations of his i»wn agent, 
who niiirht be iijnorant of a faet material to tlie enjoyment of 
the property, altlum^h the i)rin(ii)al himself knew it, and em- 
ployed the au;ent in order to avoid makiiii,' a direi-t representa- 
tion to the eoutrary. lie .-;iid that he would i,'o farther, and 
would hold that although the representation was not fraudulent, 
the airent not knowing,' it was false, yet that as it in fact was false, 
and false to the kn(.wle<li;e of the ])rineipal, although the agent 
did not know it, it ou:,dit to vitiate the contract.' So also in 
Wheelton v. llardisty,^' Lord Campbell said that AVestminster 
Hall was in favor of the opinion of Lord Abinger. In a care- 
fully considered American case, Fitzsimmons v. Joslin,* Cornfoot 
r. Fowke was pronounced to be bad hiw.' The latest aiithor- 
itv on the subject is a dictum of Lord Kingsdown, in Bristow 
('. Whitiiiore ;' "If an agent," he said," " makes a contract on 
behalf of his principal, whether with or without authority, the 
principal cannot at once ap])robate and reprobate it. lie must 
adoi)t it altogether or not at all. He cannot at the same time 
take the benefits which it confers and repudiate the obligations 
which it imj>oses." * 

'2Mnrn.ll4. ' II. L. 41«. 

1 //, lie. ' bfo Kx-i-'irt,- (Jint^cr, ft Ir. Cli. 171. 

'8 K A H. 270. Soo, also, Sui;. L. l*. Otl ; Uoyrn-ll r. 

♦'21 Vi-nii. (.Vmer.) 129. S].iyc. 1 I>. .M. .t (J. C.SH. /),;," Knight 

* Sec IJrnnett v. JuJhou, 7 Srailh I'-iik-.-, K. .1. ; but see Wilde «. Gibson. 

(ATncT.)2:{s. 1 11. h. f.o:.. 
•9 11. L. 118. 



* lloii^'li r. Uichnrdson, 3 Story, (589; Hcmk-rson v. Ilailroail Co. 17 Tix. 
SCO ; Crump r. U. B. Mining Co. 7 Gratt. M'^. 

A jjiirty ran not aviii! liiin>^uir<)r nn advantnirc tliat has IxJin obtained 
throui,'h tbi; njisnprcst-nt.ition ol a tliinl pLrsf)ii. aitlioiijxli niich third pcr- 
Hon is not lii« a}.?cnt. Hunt r. .Moore, 2 IJarr. 10."); Fit/.-iinnions r. Joslin, 
21 Vt. 129. 



MISREPRESENTATION. 1 ir> 

A partiierslii|> linn is hoiind hy lalso and iVaiiiliilent rep- 
rcsentulidii.s inadu \>y any tA' its iiii'imIxts wliilst actiii;^ within 
the scope uikI limits of hi.n authority and haviii<^ rot'ereiico to 
the proper business of the lirni/ hut is nut bound l)y state- 
ments iMa<le by liini us to his authority to do tiiat wliich 
the nature of the business of tlie linn does not impliedly 
warrant.'* 

A company or corporation is as much bound by the false 
and fraudulent representations of its authorized agents as an 
individual. If the directors of a company in tlie course of 
managing its afiaii's, or in the course of the business which it 
is their duty to transact induce a man ])y false or fraudulent 
misrepresentations to enter into a contract for the benefit of 
the company, the company is bound, and can no more re- 
pudiate the fraudulent conduct of its agents than an individual 
can.*" A company cannot retain any benefit which it may 
have obtained through the fraudulent representations of its 

• Rnpp i: Latham, 2 B. .t Aid. 70.5; .") II. L. 8r, ; Nation.il Excliani^c Co. ». 

Lovcll I', llirks, 2 Y. & C. 4r., 481; Drew, 2 Macij 12.5, per Lord Cran- 

Blair ?-. Bromluv, 5 Ha. .557, 2 I'h. .".54 ; wortli; Mcii.x Ivxccutors' ('a.«e, 2 I). M. 

■\Vickliain r. Wifkliam. 2 K. <k J. 478. A G. .522; Nicoll'.s Ca-sp, 3 1). tt J. 387, 

^ Kx-i>nrtc Agace. 2 Co.x, 312. 437 ; New Brunswick, (fcc. Kail way C'<>. 

' Burnes v. I'ennell, 2 H. L. 407; v. Conybeare, 9 IL L. 737, per Lord 

Ranger v. Great Western Railway Co. Cranworlb. 



* Henderson r. Railroad Co. 17 Tex. 580 ; Litchfield Bank r. Peck, 29 
Ct. 384 ; Criimp v. U. S. Mining Co. 7 Gratt. 352 ; East Tenn. R. R. Co. r. 
Gammon, 5 Snecd, 5G7 ; Hester v. Mempliis, &c.. R. R. Co. 32 Miss. 378; 
River v. Plankroad Co. 30 Ala. 92; New Orleans, &c., R. R. Co. r. Wil- 
liams, 10 La. Ann. 315. 

Where representations made by an atrent to obtain subscriptions are a 
part of a scheme of fraud participated in by the officers authorized to 
manage its affairs; or where they are such as the agent may reasonably be 
presumed by the subscriber to have the authority of the corporation to 
make, his representations are relevant to show the fraud by means of 
Avhieh the subscription was procured. But where there is no rensonable 
presumption of authority, and no actual authority, the corporation will not 
be prejudiced by the unauthorized acts of the agent. Custar c. Titusvillo 
Water & Gas Co. 03 Penn. 381. 



IIG MISUKrRKSENTATlON. 

ai^u'Ut.s but is re>i>on.sil)lo to tin.' rxtciit to whieh it may liavo 
profited fiHuii such ronresetitations.* 

Till' rule that a coiiii>:iny cannot ivtain any l»cnc'lit wliich it 
may havo obtained tlironi!:h the false and tVandnlent represen- 
tations of its ai^ents, ai)plies to the case of a m.-niber of tlie 
company, who wjis induced by such represeiitatioiia to take 
additional shares.' 

A principal, however, is not bouinl by tho false and fraud- 
ulent rei)resentations of his agent, unless the agent be acting 
within the sc:)pe of his authority.' A joint-stock company, 
for instance, is not bound by the statements of one of its mem- 
bers, unless he is also the agent of the coinpany, and unless 
liis business be to make statements on its behalf.* Nor is a 
comi>any bound by the statements of one of the directors, or 
of its manager, or secretary, or of a clerk, if he is not singly 
an agent of the company.' The rule that companies arc bound 
by the misrepresentations of the directors applies only to the 
case of directors acting as a body.^ 

Referees for information respecting a life to be assured are 
not thereby constituted tlie agents of the insured. If their 
information is false and fraudulent, but not to the knowledge 
of the assured, the insurer is not entitled to avoid the j)olicy 
on the ground that it was induced l)y the fraud of the agent 
of the insured.' 



• WesttTii Hnnk of Scotland •-. Addio, lUilway <-"o. r. Conyhcnro. 'J II. L.711. 
L. R. 1 Sr. Ajip. ("a. 157; Ouki's v. See Harry ''. Trosskoy, "2 J. tt M. U7. 
Tunjuiind, L. 11. 2 \w. ('«• H'-'> ; ll«'n- * Barnes v. IV-nnell, '2 II. L. 4'J7. 
dt-rs-in r. Lncon, I... li. r» K(j. 'itll. See ' Holt's ('use, 22 licnv. 48; Ayre's 
liarrv «•■ Cronskt-v, 2 .1. «t II. 1. fuse. 2.'> Heav. h\'-l ; (iibson's Case, 2 

' \Vest4Tn Hank of Scotland v. Addie, 1>. «t .1. 27.'); Nicoll's I'aHL-, U I). «k .F. 

L. 11. 1 Sc. Api". ("a. Ift.'i. 3H7: Kzpaitr Krowd. '.W L. .I.Ch. ;J22; 

• Hcrnard's < as.-. 6 I)<';j. <t S. 2H:{; Woliuston'.s ("aso. -1 I>. ct .1. l.-J?. 
Ayre'H ("a-w, 2.'i licav. .M:t; lUirne.t v. " Nio<>li'!« Case, ;j I), .fc J. ;{S7, 440. 
renmll. 2 II. L. 4'.>7; Nicoll'H Cam-, .'{ See National Kxrlianijo Co. »'. Drew, 24 
D. A J. 3H7. 4''I7 ; WollaHton'H Ca.Hc, 4 Dit. of ("onrt of Si'ssion. 'id Herit-.i, p. 1. 
d! a J. 4:J7; Att.-<ien. t-. Hnt,'i;'<. 1 ' Whcelton v. llurdisty, H E. <& B. 
Jur. N. S. lOil ; New liruuHwick, Ac, 232. 



MISUKPRESENTATIOX. 117 

An n^Piit wliORc autliurify is unknown c.innot hind liirt 
principal by niisn-prescntin^ the authority (•<)utV'nv<l.' 

Although a jtiincii»al is not bound l;y tliu KtatenicntH of an 
a^cnt wlu'u nut actini; witliin tlio scope of liis authority, tlie 
case is (lillcrcut if a princij)al knows that a luau is dcalin*; witli 
his agent uu(h'r the belief that all statements made by the 
agent are warrantril by tlu' principal, and so knowing, allows 
him to expend moneys in that behalf A court of ecpiity will 
not afterwards allow the principal to set up the want of author- 
ity of the agent. The kiujwledgc must, however, be brought 
home to the principal.'^ 

In BrockwcH's Case,^ Kindersley, V.-C, held that if the 
directors of a company in the exercise of their ordinary func- 
tions make a false report to the company, who adopt it, and 
the report finds its M'ay into the liands of a man -who takes 
shares on the faith of it, he could not he held liable.* The 
authority of the case has been, on two occasions,^ questioned 
by Lord Chelmsford.® He has expre.-scd himself as of opinion 
that a company is not bound l)y false statements contained in 
reports of the directors of the company, which have been 
adopted at a general meeting l>ut do not aliect to give any 
more knowledge than what was contained in the directors' 
report; and wdiich, although they have been published and 
have got into the hands of the public, have not been indus- 
triously circulated by the company. The distinction, however, 
suggested and takt-n by his Lordship does not seem sound law. 
In two late cases,'^ Kindersley, V.-C, said that he adhered to 
the opinion he had expressed in BrockwelFs Case ; and the 
weight of authorities is in lavor of the opinion of his Ilonor.^ 

' story on Ap;pncy- Urunswick, etc., Railway Co. v. Conj-- 

Mlninsilcii v. Dyson, L. R. 1 A\>\>. benrc, 9 H. L. 7-10. 

Ca. 129. /«<>• Lord Cranworlh. ' Sec, also, Mixer's Casc.4 D. «t J. 583. 

' 1 Drew. '2<>.'i. 'Worth's Case, 4 Drew, r).'12 ; Bnr- 

* See ^lational Exchange Co. c. Drew, rett's Case, 2 Dr. <k Sax. 415, 5 >'. R. 

2 Macq. lu;J. 4<'.(i. 

' Nicoll'a Case, 3 D. «t J. 427; New ' See National Exchange Co. f. Drew, 



118 MISRErilKSKNTATION. 

The ^I'Ui'ral interests of society deiiiaiul tliat, ft5 between an 
innocent company on tlic one liand and an innocerit individual 
detrauiled \>y the company on the »ither, mi-representations by 
the directors of a cdmpaiiy sliall himl the eoinpaiiy, altliougli 
the shareh(ddcrs may be ii^norant of tlie representations and of 
their falseliood.' It may be said tliat the rej)orts (»f directors 
arc not made fn/ the company, but to tlie company ; but the 
nruuMunt tliou^h ])lausiblc is not souikK The reports of 
directors thoupjh addressed to the shareliolders are made under 
such circumstances tliat what they so report is known, and in- 
tended to be known, not only to the shareholders, but to all 
persons who may be minded to be shareholders just the samo 
as if they were published to the worM : and the exigencies of 
mankind re(|uire that reports so made and circulated should 
be deemed to be the reports of the company.'' The case be- 
comes all the stronger, if the reports of directors have been 
adopted at a general meeting of the shareholders. After 
adoption a report is the act of the com])any aiul not simply of 
the directors.^ If after adoption a report is industriously cir- 
culated, misstatements contained in it must be taken to be 
made with the authority of the company.* 

The j)rincij>le which treats non-disclosure as e»[uivalent to 
fraud, when the circumstances impose a duty tliat disclosure 
should be made, obtains specially in respect to policies of 
assurance. Tlie contract of assurance being essentially a con- 
tract of good faith, inasmuch as the risk which the insurer un- 
dertakes can only be learnt from the representations of the 
])arty ]>roposing the insurance, courts of justice ])rocccd ujxm 
a doctrine stri<-tly analogous to that of the IJoiiian law, and 

rj5. /vr LopI Crunwiirtli. iV». 11:i, /kt ' Nnfumnl Kxclinn<;(» Co. v. Drew, 2 

I^)^^^ St. \A-imnriU; Nicoll's Cobc, » D. M«irq. I 'J.%. //<•/• L«ird « mnwortli. 
<k .1. :!H7, f,rr Tiirn«T, L. J. * * /''• ••••'<. pf I^'Ttl St. LonnnnJs. 

' Natiotiiil Exclion^o Co. v. Drew, 'i * XfW Uninswiok. Ac, liiiilway i-. 

Mac<i. 120. I'onylx'Hn'. 1» 11. 1.. 711. Sec linrrctl'u 

Ca«i\ '-! l)r. ik Sm. 115. 



mishepreskntation. 119 

rc'icarcl non-disclosure as latal to the validity of tlic; traii.sac- 
ti(»n.* * 

The rule wifli respect to the duty of disclosure applies with 
peculiar force in the case of ])olicies of marine insurance. 
The validity of a contract of marine insurance bein^' condi- 
tional upon the completeness, the truth, and the accuracy of 
the representations of the party proposini,' the insurance as to 
the risk, he is bound to make known to the underwriter every- 
thing,' within his knowlcdi^^e which is of a nature to increase 
the risk which he is askeil to undertake. There are many 
matters as to which he may be innocently silent. He is not 
Itound to mention focts and circumstances whicli are witliin 
the ordinary professional knowledge of an underwriter : nor 
is he bound to communicate things which are well known to 
both parties, or which he is warranted in assuming to be 
within the knowledge of the party who is asked to undertake 
the risk ; as, for instance, where a fact is one of puljlic noto- 
riety, as of war, or where it is a matter of inference and the 
materials for forming a judgment are common to both parties. 
But he is bound to communicate every fact which he is not 
entitled to assume to be in the knowledge of the underwriter. 
He may not, however, speculate as to what may or may not be 
in the mind of the underwriter, or as to what may or may not 
be brought to his mind by the particulars disclosed to him. 
It is not enough that the underwriter be furnished with mate- 
rials from which he may, by a course of reasoning and effort 
of memory, see the extent of the risk. The matter must not 

'Carter v. Boelim, 3 Burr. lOUO ; Linik'nau i'. Desboroutjh, 8 B. »fc C. 586. 



* Clark r. !M:in. Ins. Co. 8 How. 235 ; Fletcher c. Coin mnn wealth Ins. 
Co. 18 Pick. 41!) ; "Walclen r. Louisiana Ins. Co. 12 La. liJ-i ; N. Y. Bowery 
lus. Co. V. N. Y. lus. Co. 17 Wend. 359. 



1 JO MISREPRESENTATION. 

lie \c\\ to s|>L'Cul!iti«Mi or jxradventuro. If tlic i)articuliir8 fur- 
nitilu'd to the umlcrwriti-r fall pliort of what the i»arty i)ropo8- 
ing the insurance is boiiml to coinimniicatc, tliu contract is 
vitiated, it is iuiinateriai wlutiier the onii»i(>ii to (■••imiiuni- 
cnte a niatorial fact has arisen from intention, or inditferencc, 
or mistake, or fn»m it not bcimx ])rcsent to the mind of the 
jtart}' proposing the insurance that the fact was one which 
ought to liavc been disclosed,^ Tiie insurer is liound to com- 
municate not onlv every material fact of which he has actual 
knowledge, but every material fact of which he ought in the 
ordinary course of business to liave knowledge, and must take 
all necessary measures by the employment of comi)etent and 
honest agents to obtain througli the ordinary channels of intel- 
liirence in use in the mercantile world all due information as to 
the snbject-nnUtcr of the insurance. If by the fraiul or negli- 
gence of liis agent the party proposing the insurance is kept in 
ignorance of a fact material to tlie risk, and through such neg- 
ligence fails to disclose it, the contract is vitiated.'^ An under- 
writer may, however, in any ]>articular case limit the right of 
full disclosure which he has by law to that of being informed 
of what is in the knowledge of the party proposing the insur- 
ance, not only as to its existence in point of fact, but also to its 
materiality.' 

It was fomierly considered that policies of assurance on 
lives, like policies of insurance on 8hi])S, were nuide condition- 
ally up(»n the tnith or completeness of the representations 
respecting the risk, and that misrepresentation or concealment 
of a material fact, although not fraudiilrnt, vitiated the i>olicy.* 
r.ut it is now di'ttTMiini'd that such is not the case. Tiie assured 
is alwavs bound not only to make a true answer to the «pies- 

' CorUT »•. Ilochin, r> I5urr. 1 !•'>.'> ; ' Joni'n i'. rrovinciBl Insurnncc Co. 3 

IinU-« V. Hewitt, L. IC. 2 ^ H. :.■.•:., Oor.. C. H. N. S. Rrt. 

Q^^(^ ftlo * Liruli-iinii v. l)cst)<>r<mi;li, H H. «fe C. 

* Proudfoot V. Montffioro, L. U. '2 Q. BSt''; Joih-h i-. rruvincinl iuBunincc Co. 

]{. 511. 3 C. li. N. S. BO. 



^IISUKPRKSKNTATIoN. 121 

tions ])Ut to liiiii, Kill to diKcIoHU sititiit:iiu'(iii>ly any I'act cxclii- 
sivt'Iy witliiii Ill's k'liDwled^o, wliicli it is iii.itni;il I'ur tliu 
insurer to know. Ihit it i.s not ;iii iiii]>li(<l cKiiditi-in ot' the 
vuliility of tlie policy that tlic insured should make a coiuplete 
and true representation respectiiif]^ the lite proposed for insur- 
ance. Such coiidilidii, if iiifi'uded, must Itc made a matti-r for 
express stipulation. It' there he no wan-anty or ('<»ndition on 
the part of the i)arty proposin<^ the insurance, the insurer is 
Ruhject to all risks, unless he cjiii show u fraudulent conceal- 
ment or niisrei)resentation, or a non-communication of mate- 
rial i'acts known to thr assuivd.* It is, however, an iiiii)lied 
condition that the ])erson whose life is assured is alive at the 
time of making the policy. The ])olicy is void if the })ersou 
whose life is assured was dead at the date of the policy, though 
neither party to the policy was aware of his death.^ If there 
is a })roviso that the l>olicy shall not he disputed on the ground 
uf merely untrue statements, iiot fraudulently made, a misrep- 
resentation or concealment undesignedly made does not avoid 
the policy.' An insurer may limit his right to that of being 
infoi-med of what is in the knowledge of the party proposing 
the insurance, not only as to its existence in poijit of tact, hut 
also as to its materiality.^ 

Policies of insurance against fire are made upon the im- 
plied condition that the description of the property inserted in 
the policy is true at the time of making the policy;^ and there 
is an inqdied condition that the property shall not be altered 
during the term for which it is insured, so as to increase the 
lisk." In eftecting an insurance against fire, it is the dutv of 



' Whcclton V. Ilnrdistj-, 8 E. «fe B. )•. Scottish Equitable Life Assurance 

•232. Co. 2 II. A N. 19; Whcelton v. liar- 

'^ rritchnrd v. Merchants' Life Assur- disty, 8 E. «fc B. 2.32. 

mice Society, 3 C. B. ^'. S. 622. * 'jones v. IVovincial Insurance Co. 3 

' Fowkcs I'. Manchester and London C. B. N. 8. 8t>. 

Life Assurance Co. 8 15. it S. <»17. See * Sillem )•. Tliornton. 3 E. A B. StVs. 

Wood I'. Dwiuris, 11 Exch. 403; Rcis • lb.; Stokes v. Cox, 1 II. A N. 53o, 



122 MisKr.i'!:i:si:NTATi()N. 

the party proposini; the iusuraiu'o to fonimunicato to tho 
insurer all material tacts witliiii his kiiowledp' t(»uchin<^ tho 
property.' l»ut the insurer may limit his ri^ht to that of 
beiui; iulornuMl df what is in tlie kiii»\\Kd^e of tlie jiarty ]>ro- 
posini; the insurance, not only as to its existence in point of 
fact, hut also as to its materiality.' 

The strict rule with respect to non-disclosure, which ob- 
tains in the case of policies of insurance, does not extend to 
contrjicts of suretyship or uMiaraiitee.^ If the creditor he spe- 
cially communicated with on the subject, he is bound to make 
a full, fair, and honest coiniiiuiiicatioil of every circumstance 
within his knowledge, calculated in any way to iiilluence the 
discretion of the surety, on entering into the re<|uired obliga- 
tion.* l>ut he is not under any <luty to disclose to the intended 
surety voluntarily and without being asked to do so, any cir- 
cumstances imconnected with the particular transaction in 
which he is about to engage, which will render his position 
more luizardous, or to inform him of any matter affecting the 
general credit of the debtor, or to call his attention to the 
transaction, unless there be something in it which might not 
naturally be e.xpcctcd to take place between the parties.' If 
the intended surety desires to know any particular matter of 
which the creditor may be informed, he must make it the sub- 
ject of a distinct iiiiiuiry." Ibit if there be aiiythiiiLT in the 
transaction that might not naturally bo exi)ccted to take place 
between the parties concerned in it, the knowledge of which it 

* Lindpnnu »•. Desborousrlj. 8 R. «t C. r>i>8. Sco Smith r. Bank of Scotland, 1 
B92: Huff i». TurtuT, r, Tiiunt. .'i:J8. Dow. 27i. 

» Jont-H V. rrovincial Insurance Co. 3 ' llumillon v. AVntson, 12 CI. A- Fin. 

C. H. N. S. HI'.. 11"'; ^niall I'. Currio, 2 l)rcw. lo-j; 

* North HritiBh InBurnnco Co. v. Wvllu"< t: Lnboin-liiTo, :t 1). ,t J. r>l»:t, 
Lloyd. 1»» I'xcii. r.2:{; Wythcs ••. Ln- f.o'.t. Si-o (;riinru'lil i'. Ktlwar.lH, 2 1). 
iKiu'ciic-ri', H 1>. <k J. ('.o9; ]^-o c. Jont-s, J. it S. :.«2. 

17 ('. IJ. N. S. 4H2. Sfu Grvc-utivld v. * Hamihoii r. WnUxon. 12 C. L. it 

K'lwardH. 2 I>. .1. <t S. r.Kj. Tin. !<•'.•; Wythcs v. l.nhouvhoro, .1 1>. 

* Owen r. Il'itnnn. .'t .Mnc. «L* fJ. n7H ; «t .1. •'•"''•. Sto Orceafiuld v. Edwardi, 
Ilk-Bt V. Hr.iwn. H Jur. N. S. C(»2 ; 2 D. J. A 6. 662. 

(irccofivld v. Edwarda, 2 D. J. (k 6. oS2, 



:Misi;i:rKi:si:NTATi<)N. 123 

is rcasonnMo fn inltT would li.-ivo pri'veiituil the surety iVoin 
cTitt'riii;^ into the trausaetioii, the ereditor is under an ohli^'a- 
tioii to make the dischtsiire.' It, tor instance, there he any 
]irivate arrauij^cnient, or secret uiidcr-t.inding, oetwcen the 
creditor and the dehtor connected with the particular transac- 
tion, in which lie is ahoiit to engage, wherehy the risk of the 
surety is increased,'* or his position is so materially varied, that 
he is iKtt in the position, in wliich he might reasonably have 
contemplated to he;^ or it' a party having reason to suspect 
the fidelity of his clerk ro<|uires security in such a way jvs to 
hold him out as one whom he considers a trustworthy per- 
son,*" or if the creditor has notice that the circumstances un- 
der which the dehtor has obtained the concurrence of the 
surety lead to the suspicion of fraud;' concealment is fraudu- 
lent and will vitiate the transaction.* " It must in every case," 
said lilackburn, J., in Lee v. Jones,' " depend on the nature of 

' Ilnmilton v. Watson, 12 CI. <L' Fin. 8 D. M. & G. 100; Spaigbt v. Cowne, 1 

InO, lilt ; Lee r. Jones, 17 C. B. N. S. U. «t M. 359. 

ri(>,3; Burke v. Kogerson, 12 Jiir. N. S. * Suiitli v. Bank of Scotland, 1 Dow, 

«-.3.\ See Squire i: Whitton, 1 II. L. 272. 

:!;>;{; Greenfield v. Edwards. 2 D. J. ifc * Owen v. Iloman, 4 II. L. 997; Lee 

S. 582; Rhodes v. Bate. L. R. 1 ( h. v. Jones, 17 C.B.N. 503; Rhodes v. 

Api>. 252; Biirwick v. Enijlish Joint I5ate, L. R. 1 Ch. Ap. 252. See Guar- 

Stock Baid;, 2 L. R. Exch. 259. dians of Stokesley Union v. Strotlier, 

' ridcock .. Bishop, 3 B. & C. 605. "^^'ee Squire v. Whitton, 1 H, L. 333. 

» Evans i-. Breniridge, 2 K «fe J. 1 74 ; ' 17 C. B. N. S. 506. 



* A person can not be considered as guilty of fraud in law by omittinir 
to make known facts of an important character afl'ccting the risk of the 
surely when it does not appear that he had an opportunity to do so. On 
the contrary, when he does know such facts, and has reason to believe that 
they are not known to the proposed surety, if information be sought from 
him, or if he have a suitable opportunity, and the facts are of such a char- 
acter that they are not found in the usual course of that kind of business, 
and are such as materially to increase the risk, it is his duty to make them 
known. To receive a surety known to be acting upon the belief that there 
are no unusual circumstances by which hi- risk will be materially increased, 
well knowing that there are such circumstances, and having reasonable 
opporlunity to make them known, is a legal fraud by which the surety 
will be relieved from the contract. Franklin Bank r. Coop.-r. oG Me. 179 ; 
b.c.'dl Me. U2. 



121 Misui:i'Ki:si:NTATi()X. 

the transaction, whctluT the tact not disclosed is sncli that it 
is impliedly represented not to exist, and that fact ninst 1)0 
"JCcneraily a (pjcstion of fact for the jnrv." 

lu onh-r that a (iuii])roinise nuiy he sn^ported in equity, 
it is essential that the parties should havf acted with eijual 
knowledije, or at least equal me:u)s of kn<n\ led;x^> in the mat- 
ter. If one c»f the i)arties has knowledi^e of a material fact, 
which he withholds from the others, and which they have not 
rcasonahle means of kiiowiiiL', the transaction cannot stand. 
A compromise cannot he apjirovnl of where one party knows 
only so much of his rights Jis the oi>])0.site ]>arty chooses to 
apprise liim of. To constitute a fair compromise of a douhtful 
riiijht, the facts creatiiif; the douht should he equally known 
hv all the parties. There must he a full an<l fair communica- 
tion of all material circumstances affecting the question, which 
ft)niis the suhject-matter of the agreement, which are within 
the knowledge of the several parties, and which the others 
have not reasonahle means of knowing, whether such informa- 
tion be asked for by them or not. There must not (»nly 1)0 
good faith and lionest intention, but full disclosure, ami with- 
out full disclosure honest intention is not sutlicient.* A party 
to a eomi)romise who has knowledge of a fact, must not take 
up<»n himself to decide that the supj^ressed fact is innnaterial, 
if it could l»y any }>ossibility have had any influence on the 
decision of the other party. ^ If the compromise is a transac- 

' Tiibbons i». Cnunt, 4 Vos. 840 ; Wal- don, i'>. 471 ; Li'onnrd v. Loonnrd, J H. A 
kert'. i?ymoDdfl, 3bw. 1 ; Gordon t-.Gor- li. ISO; llotchkiiW v. Dickion, 2 liiij^u, 



• Trij;jr r. Hcail. 5 Hun)j)lu 52'.t ; Carr c. Callnglmn, 3 Litt. .•}(!."). 

('onci-alnu-nt will not invali<latc' a coiiipromisc unle^ a Ions Inn been 
occnsionetl thcn-liy. C'tirric r. Steele, 2 Saiidf. 512. 

A compromise with knowletljfo of all the facts is valiil althou.<;h tha 
adverse party lias exprcHMMl an unfoundcil opinion npon his riijhts. Hlako 
r. Piik, 11 Vt. 4S:3; SnltonstuJl c. Gordon, HA Ala. I'J ; BirUsong c, Bird- 
Kong, U Head. 289. 



MTSRKPItESKNTATK )N'. 125 

lion in tlio iiiitiirt; i>i' :i taiiiiiy :in-;iii;,'cMiiciil, or it", under the 
fircuMistances of tliu case, it was iIk; duty of the one ])any to 
gee that the nature of the transactiun was fully c.\j)hiineil to 
the other, these [»rinciples a]ii)Iy witli i)eculiar force.* ]*iit if 
the parties to a family arrangement are not (jn good terms, and 
are really at arms' leHi,'th, the ordinary rules as to disclosure in 
family arrangements have no place.* 

Tlie ruh; with lespect to compromises, which applies be- 
tween private individuals, is not less applicable to compro- 
mises by the courts on behalf of infants. The orders of the 
court cannot be set aside on gr(junds less strong than those 
whieli would lie rcijuii-ed to set aside tiMusactions between 
competent i)artics.^ 

The most comprehensive class of cases in which equitable 
relief is sought on the ground of concealment, is in the case of 
transactions between persons standing in a tiduciaiy relation 
to each other. In all such cases the ]>arty wIkj fills the posi- 
tion of active conlidcnce, is under an eipiitable obligation to 
disclose to the ])arty towards whom he stands in such relation, 
every material fact which he hitnself knows calculated to influ- 
ence his conduct on entering into the ti'ansaction. The su}>- 
pression of any nuiterial tact renders tlu' transaction impeach- 
able in e(|uity.'* This subject will come into review in a 

348; Stcwnrt v. Stewart, C CI. & Fin. Cooke, 4 Russ. o8 ; Pickering v. Picker- 

911; Harvey i'. Co >ke, 4 Huss. ;J4, ing. 2 Beav. .51), 3 Jur. 743 ; Smith v. 

Piekeriii;^ v. Pickerin:;. 2 Beav. 5i', ; I'ineombe, 3 Mao. <t(i. 653; Davis r. 

Sc<>tt r. Srott, 11 Ir. Kij. 7."i; (Toymonr Chanter, 3 AV. U. 321; Greenwood t. 

». Piirge, 13 L. J. 111. 322; Bainbrijse GrceiiwooJ, 2 I>. J. <t S. 28. See Brent 

V. Moss. 3 .fur. X. S. .58; Davis v. Clian- v. Brent, 10 L J. Ch. 84. 
ter, 3 W. U. 321 ; Greenwooil v. Green- ' Irvine v. Kirkpalrick, 7 Bell's Sc. 

wood, 2 D. .1. tfc S. 2.S ; Bnxdie i: Lord App. Ca. 18t>, 2ii9. 
Mostyn, ib. 373. See Lloyd v. I'nssinij- ' Brooke v. Lord ilostvn. 2 D. J. «i; 

lmm,"Coop. 152 ; M'Keliar r. Wallace,'8 S. 416. 

Moo. P. V. 378 ; Triage v. Lavalh'e, 15 * Walker v. Symonds, 3 Sw. 1 ; Wood 

Moo. P. C. 270; Cooke i;. Greves, 30 v. Downe*, 18' Ves. 120; Bulkier ». 

Beav. 378. Wilfnrd. 2 CI. A- Fin. I(i2, 177-1«1 ; 

'Dunnage v. White, 1 Sw. 137; Maddiford r. Ausfwick, 1 Sim. 8'.»: 

Gordon I'. Gordon, 3 Sw. 400; Leonard Lloyd i: Alt wood, 3 D. «t J. 614 ; Tohi- 

V. Leonard, 2 B. <& B. 180 ; Harvey i-. son v. Judge, 3 Drew. 306. 



126 Misi;i;i'i:r,si:NTATi<iN. 

sub.<ctiuciil i>:i.i;o, wlioiv the jtoi'uliar c'4uities between persons 
standing in these j^rodieanicnts come into consideration. 

The |»rincii>le of law, that a man who makis a representa- 
tion to anothir in such a wav, oi- lunh-r .'-uch cirfuinstanccs, ns 
to induce liini to believe that it is meant to be acted on, is 
liable as for a fraud, in the event of the representation i>roving 
to be false, and damage thereby accruing to the party to whom 
it wjis made, though common to both law and ciiuity,* is not 
60 general in its application at law a- in i'<piity. It is not 
necessary, nor, iierha}>s, would it be easy to detine the limits of 
its application at law, but in ccpiity the ])rinciple is of xary 
general api>lication, and is the foundation of a very com])rc- 
hensive and most salutary ]>art of the iuris(lictii>n. A man 
•who has so conducted himself as to cause a reasonable man ti» 
believe in the existence of a particular fact, or state of facts, 
or things, and to believe that the representation, as conveyed 
to his mind, was meant to be acted on, will not be pci-niitted 
bv a court of e(piity to derogate from interests whicli have 
been created, or rights which have been acquired on the faith 
of the existence of such a fact, or state of facts or things, by 
showing that the fact, or state of facts or things, was nut such 
as he represented it to be, or by determining the actual state 
of things which he has so held forth as the consideration for 
the change of his condition by the otlnr. (»r to enforce liis 
leal right, if any, against him, unless the latter has received 
the benefit which he contemi)lated at the time he was induced 
to alter his condition.''* 



• Supra, p. 68. 6f>fl ; Pijotl v. Ptratton. Julni. ;:.')'.». 1 1). 

» Wt-t V. Joiiff.. 1 Sim. N. S. 207; V. it .1. -I'": Co^iht >: .I...!. 1 l>. F, A .1. 

Miijor r. Mi»ii>r, 1 l)rew. Irt.'i; Soincrsci- 'J I": J»fiiily i'. <.'ary, '.» .Iiir. .N. S hi.') 

uliirc Lttiiai Co. r. llnrcourt, 1! 1>. iV J. Youiiiuiia «•. WiirniiiiH. I.. K. 1 Kq. 18.").' 



♦ If a jKirty ho rondiict-i hiniHtiras uilliiv^ly iinil williiurly to lead 
ariotlicT iato tlie belief of a fact wbrrvliy lu; would l>c injured if the f.ict 



MISnEPRESEXTATiny. 127 

The jti'iiu'ipli' is iii»t limited to cases wlicrc a diHtiuct rej)re- 
t^eiilatioM has been iiia(K', hut applies ('(jually to cases wheix' a 
man, hy liis silence, jn'udiiees a false inipressiuii on the mind cjI' 
anuther.^ If a man has been silent, when in coiiHcience lie 
oiiij^ht to have spoken, ho is debarred in C(|uity from Kpeakin^ 
when conscience rivjnires him to be silent.^ If a ])arty has an 
interest to prevent an act beini; done, and he ac(|nie.secs in it 
60 as to induce a reasonable belief that he consents to it, and 
the position of others is altered by their giving credit to his 
sincerity, lie lias no more right to challenge tlie acts to their 
])rcjudice, than he would have, had it been done by his pre- 
vious license.^ Parties who stand by without asserting their 
rights, and allow otliers to incur liabilities which they might 
not have incurred if those rights had been asserted, cannot 
set np those rights in a court of equity as against -those by 
wh(jm such liabilities have Leeu incr.rrcd.^ AVhen, for in- 
stance, a man builds or lays out moneys upon land, supposing 
it to be his own, and believing he has a good title, and the 
real owner, perceiving his mistake, abstains from setting him 



' Supra, p. OJ. * Ollivor i: K\ng, 8 D. M. & G. 118. 

" Nivpn )'. Belknap, 2 Johns. (Amcr), prr TuiniT, L. J,; Lindsaj' v. Gibbs, 3 
573, J>f>' Thonipi^on, L'. J. D. «fc J. 0'J7. 

' C'airncros-* r. Loriincr, 7 Jur. N. S. 
150, ;>t/- Lord l'!mii)bell. 



were not as so apprehended, the person imlucing the belief mil be estop- 
ped from dcnyinir it to the injury of such person. Crockett v. Lnshljroek, 
5 Mon. 530; "Watson r. ^MeLaren, 10 "Wend. 557 ; Petere r. Foster, 21 
"Wend. 172; Davis r. Tliomus, 5 Leigh, 1 ; Hank r. "Wollaston, 3 Ilarring. 
rO; Ilicks r. Cram, 17 Vt. 449; Clements r. Loggins, 2 Ala. 514; Roe r. 
Jerome, 18 Ct. 1G8 ; Croat v. De "Wolf, 1 R. I. 393 ; Robinson r. Justice, 3 
Peun. 19 ; Cowles p. Haco, 21 Ct. 451. 

The fact that his conduct arose from carekssness or negligence is no 
excuse. Cady r. Owens, ;>4 Vt. 598. 

The doctrine has no anplication where a mistake as to title is mutual, 
and the person h::ving no title baa not expeuded any money. Stuart r. 
Luddinglon, 1 Rand. 403. 



VJS M 1 S K 1 • I • R i:S i: N 1" A i' 1 ( » X . 

riu'Iit. i'H'l loaves him t»» jutm-vi'iv in his i-nur ; * or where ii 
luau, muler un e.\i>eftation crwUed or ciieouraijeil by tho owner 



♦ Mere silcnrc and tlic m:»kiiij? of improvomonts by others, is not siiffl- 
ciont. ThiTo must h^ some ini.'iT<lii'nt in the trunsactioii wliicli would 
ni:ik<' it !i fraud in tho owner to insist upon liis ic^xal ri<^lit. Siloiuc will 
postpone only when- siloncc is a fraud. Kolk r. liinh Iniar, (5 Watts, SIIO; 
Cri'st r. Jack. 3 Watts, 'J38 ; Dcvrrcux r. liur^'wyn, 5 In-d. Eij. 351 ; Nevin 
V. Belknap, 2 Johns. 373; Clalmu<;h r. Byerly, 7 Gill. 3:>4. 

Several tliin<js arc essential to he made out in onler to the operation of 
the rule. 1st. The art or declaraticm of the person must be wilful, that is 
with knowled'^c of the facts upon which any rit;lit he may liave must de- 
pend, or with an intention to deceive the other party. '2tl. He must at 
least be aware that ho is jjiviiif; countenance to the alteration of the con- 
duct of the other party. ;3d. And it must appear that the other party has 
chmped his position by reason of such inducement. C'opeland r. Cope- 
land. 2S Me. 525; Morton r. Ilogdon, 32 Me. 127; Morris r. Moore, 11 
Humph. 433; Taylor r. Zipp, 11 Mo. 4H2; Carpenter r. Slillwell, 12 Barb. 
128; Eidred r. Ha/.lett, 33 Penn. 307. 

The word " vrilfully," as used in this connection, is not to be taken in 
the limited sense of the term " maliciously," or of the term " fraudulently; " 
nor do.'S it neccssirily imply an active desire to produce i particular im- 
pression, or to induce a particular line of conduct. Whatever the motive 
mav b\ if (me so acts or speaks that the natural consequence of his words 
and conduct will be to inlluence another to chanL^e his condition, he is 
legally chargeable with an intent, a wilful design to induce the other to 
Ix'lieve him and to act upon that belief, if such proves to be the actual 
result. Preston v. Mann, 2> Ct. 118. 

If a party has misled another under such circumstances that he had no 
reasonable grouml for suppo-iing that the p -rson whom he was misleading 
was to act upon what he was saying, he will not Ne lM)und by his represen- 
tations. If a stranger hears and acts upon his representations the doctrine 
does not apply. Morgan r. Spanglcr, 4 Ohio St. R. 102. 

A refusal to sjjeak with a reason given for it is not the same thing as 
silent acquiescence in what another is saying. Taylor r. Kiy, 25 Ct. 250. 

The rule does not apply where the means and opportunity of tracing 
title are equally open to both pirtie-;. It can only be held to apply 
against one who claims und<T some trust lien or other right not ccpially 
oiH-n and apparent to l)oth |)arties. Tongue r. Nut well, 17 .Md. 212. 

The iini)rovementH must bt; of such a character as to show that tho 
partv iilared tlu-m there in coiili lenee of his being the owner of the land. 
Caldwell r. Williams, 1 Baihy's Ch. 175. 

Although the right of the p.irly who thus misleads third persons by 
hi.< silence is merely a reversionary inlcran, aud sulyect l<> a lite estate in 



MISKEPUKSKNT AT ION'. 1 'J! I 

of l.iu'l tliat licsliall li;tvc u certain interest, takes posBCSBioii <>[' 
such l;iii(l, with the coiiseiit of the owner, ,'iii<I ii|miii the faith 
of 8uch promise or expectation, with the knowledge of the for- 
mer, and witliout objection by him, hiys out moneys upon th'- 
hind ; in sncli cases a court of equity M'ill not afterwards alh»w 
the real owner or the ]andh)rd, as the case may be, to assert hi- 
lei::al ri^dit a^-aiiist the otlier, withuut at least makiiiir hint a 
|)roper compensation for tlie e.\})ei:diture wliich lie has in- 
curred.^* If the works on which moneys have been laid out 
arc of a permanent character, or are works wdiicli point to per- 
manence, the court will not al](jw thciii to l)e interfered witli, 
even ujxm the ])ayinent of a ])ropcr compensation. A man 
who by liis conduct lias encouraged another to sj)end inoncvs 
on liis land, in erecting works of a permanent cliaracter, cannot 
be permitted to put an end to the very thing which lie has ap- 
])roved. All that he is entitled to is a proper compensation in 

' Enst India Co. v. Vincont, 2 Atk. R-av. 20 ; I.aird »•. Birkcnhoad Raihvav 

S.3; Dnnn c. Spnrrior, 7 Vi's. 2:55 ; Shan- Co. Jolin. 514; Ilnnourt v. White, 28 

non V. Bradstrtpt, 1 Sch. it Lef. .')2; Ik-av. :{(•;{ ; Archbold t'. Scully, y If. L. 

(;rc2:orv«'. Mi^^hi'il, 18 Ves. 328; Caw- Sfiii; O'Fay v. Burke, 8 Ir. Ch. 225; 

ilor r. Lewis. 1 Y. .(■ C. 427; Ci.irrard Burke ;•. j'rinr, 15 Ir. Cii. 106. See 

I'. O'Heilly, .'n)!-. .1- War. 414; ("hire r. IJanisdcn c. Dyson, L. R. 1 App. Ca. 

Hardin;;, (l Ha. 2?:!; Powell v. Thonia-i, 12'.i; Nunn r. Fabian, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 

»/). oO.") ; Duke uf Leeds i-. Lord Am- 35, 
liurst, 2 I'll. IIT; AVhito c. Wakley, 26 



tlie very pei-son whom he suffers to deal with the property as absolute 
owner, the rule of equity still applies. ni<,'ginbotham v. Barnctt, 5 Johns. 
Ch. 184; Barclay v. Davidson, G3 Penn. 40G. 

A party who cncouracrcs another to buy up a piece of property, can not 
nlterwards buy uj) a better title and assert it. Beaupland r. McKeen, 28 
Penn. 124; Davis r. Handy, 37 N. H. Go. 

At law neither concealment nor misrepresentation nre an estoppel, and 
there is no rule which precludes a party from showing ins title. Jones r. 
Sasser, 1 Dev. & Bat. 4G2; West v. Tilghman, 9 Ircd. 1G3; McPlurson r. 
Walters, 16 Ala. 714 ; :\Iiller r. Piatt, 5 Duer, 272 ; contra, Corbctt r. Nor- 
cross, 35 N. IL 99 ; Corkliill r. Landers, 44 Barl). 218. 

* Swain r. Scamens, 9 Wall. 2.j4 ; Town r. Xcedham, 3 Paige, 54fi ; Hall 
r. Fisher, 9 Barb. 17; Carr v. AVallace, 7 Watts, 394; Eply r. Withcrow, 7 
Watts, 163. 



l;;0 .MlSIil.l'KKSr.NTATlON. 

rospei't of the land wliiih has liroii taktn.' Tlic piiiu-iplo ap- 
plies to c'oinjmnic'S as well as iiidivMuais.' Thu case in which 
the jtrineiple has hccn (anifd t.. tin- farthest extent is Claver- 
ini: /•. Thomas.^ It was tlirrc lu-ld that a man wlm lias stood 
liv and allowed moneys to ho spent in openin<; u mine, which 
lie knew eoidd oidy he worked hy a wayleave over his own 
land, was honnd in etpiity to <xive the wayleave. 

Another illnstration <»f t!ie jfriiuipie tliat a man wlm re- 
mains silent when there is a duty to speak is honnd in equity, 
is where a man chiimini,' a title in himself to i)roperty is privy 
to the fact of another, with color of title, or pretendinj; to title, 
dealing with the property, as heini,' his own, or as heinj:; unin- 
cumhered, and conceals his claim. A man who claims an in- 
terest in pro]»i'rty need not voluntarily communicate the exist- 
ence of liis claim to a person whom he knows to he ahout 
])urchasini; the pro])erty,^ hut the supi)rcssion or concealment 
of his claim is a fraud in tlie sense of a court of equity, if a 
man is privy to the fact lliat tlie ap[)an.'nt owner or jKirty in 
possession is about t<» deal with tlie property as his own, and as 
unincumbered, and he does not i^ive the i)arty, with whom Jio 
is about to deal, notice of his right. He will not be permitted 
by a court of e(iuity to set up afterwards his own interest 
an-ainst a title created hy the other.'" In a case where a 

'Duke of IJi-nufort i-. Pntrick, 17 r.M; SnvftirtM>. Foster. Mod. 3rt ; Bcr- 

n<-iiv. C(t; SdunT-et-liire ranal Co. v. ri~;f.>nl r. Milwiir.l, '2 Atk. ll); Hookctt 

Iliircourt.'il). it J :.'JtJ; Mold c.Wli.'at- r. Cordli-y, 1 Uro. ('. ('. :i.'.7 ; (iovelt v. 

cT'-ft -27 Hcav. :.U'.. S.-c U.ll n. Mid- Kirlunon.i, 7 Sim. 1 ; IJiowii c Thorpe, 

lui.d'ltailwiiv ••o.tJ 1>. .1- .1. tu.-S. 11 L. .1. V\x. 7:i ; Hoyd r. Holtoii. 1 J. 

' Hill V. South Stairord^^hiro Uaihvny it L. 7:{t'; Thomiis.m »-. Slm|is.ni, 2 .1. 

Co II Jur. N. S. 11)2. «t L. IKi; Ni«lii>!.Hon y. Iloojifr. I M. 

•bit. 6 Vc«. C85t, f. Hu. :ti>j. it C. 17'.>; Zulufin v. Tyrif. \h Hoav. 

*So*Kooi>or V. Hnrrinon, 2 K. it J. :>'.•! ; Maiii;ti"< ••. Di.von. .'i II. L. 7:<»; 

10:i- Mnn(;l.-Hf. I»ix..ii. :i II. L. 7 :{'••. Oiliv.r .•. Kinir. S \\ M. it (J. 110; 

• Tcnu'lulo I'. Tt-nMlalc. Sil. Ca. Ch. 1»avi.s v. I).ivii«. C, .hir. N. S. l:i2'2; 

r.O; HunBdrii r. <■' I'ViiiV. 2 Vcrn. l.'.n; Iplnii v. Vaniur. 1 Ur. it Sin. MM; 

IJiiw P. Tolc. i/j. 2;;vi; brnpi-r «•. Uor- 11'mi).ii- r. (iumin. 1,. U. 2 Ch. A|i|i. 282. 
la»«;, ib. 370; Ibbolflon v. llhodes, iA. 

♦ WeiKhdl r. Van Ucnssh-r, 1 Johnn. Cli. 31-J ; Lpc r. Porter. C Jolina. 
CI). 20^; Ka-'lc r. 15urns, T) Call. '!•>:!; Harrison c. Kdwurd*, H Liti. UIO; 



MISRKPRESKNTATION. 131 

mother licaifl lici- mui Ixt'ore lils marriage dcc'lc»ro tliiit a certain 
trnii W118 to coniu U> liiiu at her ck-atli, ami was witiie.s.s to a 
'Ireil, whereby the reversion was settled on the issue of the 
marriage, she was held compellable in equity to make f^ood the 
settlement.* So, also, in a case where a man havin<^ a claim 
uixiii |i!'(>|)c'rty, wliicli was the subject ol'a reference, knew tli;,t 
the arbitration was ^oini,^ on but did not brim; Ibrward li.' 
claim, he was held bound by the award.^ In Mocatta v. Muv- 
gatroydj^thc principle was ap[)lied in the case of a first mort- 
gagee, from the mere circumstance of his being a witness to a 
second mortgage, but the case goes too far. In order to })ost- 
pone a prior mortgage, it is necessary to prove against him 
fraud or actual notice of the subsequent mortgage.* 

' lliinsdcn V. Clicyticy, 2 Vern. 150. ' 1 V. W. 393. 

' Uovctt V. Uichinoiid, 7 Sim. 1. * Ik-ckett v. L'ordley, 1 Bro. C. C. S.'.:: 



Storrs r. Barker. G Johns. Ch. IGG ; Ten Eick r. Simpson, ! S indf. Cb. 344 ; 
Allen r. Winston, 1 Kami. 0.1; Skirving f. Neufville. 2 Dc-.^saii. 194; Las- 
scUe V, Banu'tt, 1 Blackf. 130; Dickenson v. Davis, 2 Loi;fb,401; Ilowland 
r. Scott, 2 Paige, 4UG; Kaugley r. Spring, 8 Shep. l;JO; Bird r. Benton, 
2 Dev. 179 ; Governor r. Freeman, 4 Dev. 472 ; Dewey v. Field, 4 Met. 3S1 ; 
Thompson r. Sanborn, 11 N. II. 201 ; Tomlin v. Den, 4 Harris, 7G; Ivors 
r. Chandler, 1 Cbij)nian, 48 ; Skinner ». Strouse, 4 Mo. 93 ; Brothers r. 
Porter, G B. Mou. lOG ; Cox v. Buck, 3 Strobb. .'JG? ; March v. Weekerly, 13 
Ponn. 250; Danley v. Rector, 5 Eng. 211. 

The assent is as much to be inferred from the encouragement to pay a 
small sum as the whole purchase money, for the purchaser, inferring such 
assent fiom such payment, may reasonably go on thereafter to complete his 
Ijurcbase. Eagle v. Burns, 5 Call. 403. 

The tact that the title is a matter of record is no defence to the owner. 
Carr r. Wallace. 7 Watts, 394; Eploy r. Witberow, 7 Watts, 1C3. 

If the truth is known to both parlies, or if both parties have equal 
means of information, the rule does not apply. Catlin v. Grote, 4 E. D. 
Smith, 290; Tongue v. Xutwell, 17 Md. 212. 

A party who stands by at a sale under an execution, may by his roii- 
duct preclude himself from afterwards setting up title to the jiropcrty 
sold. MDonald r. LindlU, 3 Kawle, 492; Eplcy i: Witherow, 7 Watts, 
103; Keelcr ?!. Vantuyle, G Barr. 2.')0; Whittington r. Wright, 9 Geo. 23; 
Morland r. Bliss, 12 B. Men. 253; Gottschalk r. Du Santos, 12 La. An. 
473. 



i;>'2 .MlSULrilESENTATlOX. 

The equitable rule tliat a man claiiniiii,' an interest in prop- 
erty may not stand ])y and conet'al his claim, when he sees 
nn»tther di'alin«; with the jirojiorty as his owu, (»r as uniiiciiMi- 
bcred, ni>pHes willi |ie(iiliar tnrco, if tin- pcrsmi claiiniiii; title 
ha» in any way actively cncourai^ed the parties to deal with 
each other,* * or has confirmed the])arty in the error into which 
lie has lallen, or if he derives any benefit from the delusion so 
causc(l.'- 

In order to justil'y the application of the principle, it Ls in- 
dispensable that the Jiarty standing by should be fully apprised 
of his rights, and should by his conduct encourage the other 
party to alter his condition, and that the latter should act on 
the faith of the encouragement so held(»ut.^t The i)rinci])le 



' Djor V. Dvcr, 2 Ch. Ca. lOR; Dra- • Dnnn v. S|iiiiTi(T, 7 Ves. 230; Bnr- 

pcr r. HorlnsV, 'i Vern. :i7i>; ll>liots(in nnrtl r. Willis. Cr. it I'h. s:>; Mnrkt-r 

v. UIkhIis, ib. :.:»:(; lirown r. Tlioriu-. »-. Marker. '.' lln. Iti; Hooikf r. Clark, 

1 1 L. J. Cli. 7:i; Davies v. Davies, 2."> L. J. Ch. JOT ; Uamedciif. Dyson, L. 

Jur. N. S. 1322. U. 1 Aiij). Ca. 12y. 

' Nicholson I'. Hooper, 4 M. it C. 17'J. 



* Folk r. BcitlclmaD, G Watts. :3:J9 ; AilLs r. Graham, Litt. 440 ; Hlatk- 
wood r. Jones, 4 Jones' E(j. 5t , 

+ Snel;;rove r. Snelirrove, 4 Dessau. 274 ; Biifkin<;Iiani r. Sniitli, 10 
Ohio, 288; l{inj,'row r. Warder, G B. ^Mon. 514; Whitaker r. Williams, 20 
Ct 1*8; Lewis r. San Antonio, 7 Tex. 2H8; Tilj^hman f. West, 8 Ired. Ecj. 
183; Dixficid r. Newton, 4 1 Me. 231 ; MeAlleriy r. Omover, 7 Ohio St. ]{. 
yO; Bo'.'^js r. Merced (t al. 14 Cal. 270; Newman r. Kdwards, ;J4 Penn. 132 ; 
Danlorth r. Adam.s 29 Ct. 107; Junction H. R Co. r. Ilarpold, 19 Ind. 
:A1; Tongue r. Nutwell, 17 Md. 212; Kohinson v. Justice, 2 Pmn. 19. 

Where u jiarty acting; under a mistake of law or of fact.**, doi-s acts 
wliich mislead the adverse party, he is estoppeil as well as if he was not 
acting; under such mi.xtake. Garner r. Bird, T)? Barb. 277; Barnes r. ]\Ic- 
Kay, 7 Ind. :J01 ; Tilton r. Nelson, 27 Harl). ."jll.j ; Aills r. Graham. Litt. 
440; Skinning r. Neufville, 2 I)es.sau. 194 ; Strong r. Klsworth. 2(5 Vt. 300; 
Wells r. Pierce, 27 N. JI. .lO:); Htorre r. Barker, G J«ihns. Ch. IGG; MKcl- 
vey r. Trut.y, 4 W. ct S. 552:3; Jackson r. Inubit, 2 Hill's Ch. 411; 8. c. 
Riley's Ch. 9. 

positive act.H Ktnnd upon adillVnnt footint; from mere concealment; 
for there, a title may be pontponed even witliout fraud, in accordance with 
an efjuitable principle of uuiverwil application, that where a loss must 



Mi.sRi:riu:sr,NTATi<)N. i:j;» 

dot'8 not M|i]ily in favor of a sf iMiiL,'<;r who l.-iiiMs on laii<J, Jciiuw ■ 
ing it to Itc tilt' jii'uperty of anutlur, \\;>r in favor ot' a Ic.-scc 
who cxi)Cik18 iiioncys witli tlie knowleil<^e of liis luiidlord on iIm; 
improvcnu'iit of the estate. If a straii^'er l)uihl8 on hiiid know- 
ing it to lie tlie j)roj»c'rty of another, ecjuify will not prevent 
tlie real owner from afterwards cLiiniing the land, witli the 
hcnelit of all the (•.\[Mii(Jitiires npon it. Su, also, if a tenant 
being in possession of land, and knowing the nature and e.xtent 
of his interest, lays out money n])on it in the hope and expec- 
tation of an extended term or an allowance for it, then If sncii 
ho])G or ex])ectation has nut been created or encouraged by tlie 
landlord, the tenant has no equity to prevent the landloi-d from 
taking possession of the land and buildings when the tenancy 
is determined.* * Kor does the principle apply in favor of a 
man who is conscious of a defect in his title, and with such 
conviction in his mind expends money in improvements on the 
estate.' f 

' rillini; v. Armitajro, 12 Ves. TR ; son, L. R. 1 App. Cn. 129, per Lord 

Claro Hail I', lliirdiii:^, G Iln, 27:5; Duke Kiiit;s(lo\vn. See Kcnnio v. Young, 2 

(if Beaufort v. I'atrick, 17 licnv. CO; D. d- .1. 1 12. 

llamer v. Tilslcy, John. 487; O'Fav v. ' Keime}' v. Brown, .3 Ridg. 518. 
Burke, 8 Ir Ch. 220 ; llumsd'.n v. I>y- 



ncccssarily fall upon one of two innocent persons, it shall be borne by him 
whose act has occasioned it. Beaupland v. lIcKeen, 28 Penn. 124. 

The excuse of ignorance does not apply where the misrepresentations 
that mislead another are made by a party who is consciously ignorant of 
the matter to wliitli they relate at the very time that he professes a full 
knowledge of it. Preston p. Mann, 2.3 Ct. 118. 

An express agreement recognizing an erroneous boundary will conclude 
a party where the other party, acting upon the faith of such agreement, 
has made expensive improvements, the benefit of which will be lost to him 
if the Hue is disturbed. Corkhill r. Landers, 44 Barb. 218 ; Wood r. Mc- 
LcUan. 48 ^Jte 275 ; Comlis r. Cooper, 5 Minn. 254. 

* Ferris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 589; Odlin v. Gove. 41 N. II. 4(31; H.ddwin 
r. Uiehnian, 1 Stockt. 894 ; Patton c. IMcClim', 1 ^lart. &, Yerg. 333 ; Gray 
i\ Bartlett, 20 Pick. 18G. 

t McCormick r. Mc.Murtrie, 4 Watts, 192; Buckingham r. Smith, 10 



134 Misin:rrj:si:NTATi('>N. 

A iiKui wlu), with full kii<»wli'(li;o of llii* ronl circiiinstanccs 
t»f tlio case, ])oriuit.s aiK»tlK'r, under a mistake, to execute a 
(leetl, whereby he incurs a liability, cannot be heard to say that 
lie has contracted liability on the faith of the other being sub- 
ject to the liability.* 

The rule at law as to leave and license not being countcr- 
mandable cannot, perha])S, as far as it goes, be distinguished 
from the equitable doctrine of acquiescence,' but leave and 
license executed may be set up at law, as giving a right and 
title, only in cases where moneys have been expendeil by a man 
upon his own land.' No right or title can be ac(iuired to an 
casement, or other right over the land of another, although the 
license may have been executed, and moneys may have been 
expended upon the land of the licensee by his express permis- 
sion. The license may bo at any time countermanded at the 
Mill of the owner of the soil.* But in equity the doctrine of 
accjuiescence apjdics as well where a man has been induced to 



• Broti!;hton v. Ilutt, 3 D. A J. fiOl. Mnrshall, 10 C. B. X. S. 711; Blood c. 

' Diiviesr. Mnrshnll, 10 C. B. N. S. Killer. 11 Jr. C. L. IJI. 

711. /T \Vill.'S, J.; but bcc Swaiiic ;-. * Wallis r. Harrison. I M. .t W. B38; 

(.Jreat Northern llailway Co, 'J Jur. N. Wood v. Londbitii-r. l;i M. it W. 8.*{8; 

tj. liyo. Davics V. Marsliall, lo ('. B. X. S. 711. 

» Winter »•. Brockwell, 8 East, 809; Sec Fislier »-. .Moon. 1 1 L. T. N. S. fi23; 

Ilcwiins i: Slii|pliatn. 5 B. «fc C. 221; but seo Blood v. KelKr. 11 Ir. C. L. 

Lig^iud V. Inge, 7 Bing. G82 ; Daviea i'. 121. 



Ohio, 288; Ilopbum v. McDowell, 17 S. A U. :{S3; Crest r. J.ick, 3 Watts, 
288. 

One joint tenant cannot make improvements on the common property 
without the consent of the rest, and tlien chiim to hold it until reimbursed 
n proportion of the moneys expended. Crest r. Jack, 3 Watt.f, 2:18. 

Tlie law in)putes knowledf^c of every fact of wliicli tlie exercise of 
ordinary dili;^ence would have put a party in possession, and such an im- 
jtutation of knowIcd;.;e is sulheient to rebut llie infcr'ncc of a merely con- 
etruetive frau<l, wlii* li mi^dit otherwise be implied Irom tlie silence of tho 
owner. AIcxan<h-r r. Kerr, 2 Hawle, b3; Chew r. Caloitt, I Walk. 81; 
RnoufT c. ThooipHoD, 10 Tcnn. U37. 



MISRErRESENTATIo^, 135 

o.\|»cn<l iiioiu'vs on tlic l;iiiil of aiiutliiT, as where tlio {.'XjK'IkH- 
ture has hrcii on his own laml.* 

Tlie equitable doctrine with respect to the part })erl'orni- 
ance of parol agreements is founded on the general doctrine of 
law as to niisro])resentation. At law tlie express language of 
the Statute of Frauds prevails, and the doctrine as to the part 
performance of parol agreements has no place. Hut in e<juity 
it is a fraud in the eye of the court to set up tlie absence of an 
agreement, where possession has been given on the faith of an 
agreement. If a man has been permitted to take possession 
on tlie faitli of an agreement, it is against equity that he should 
be treated as a trespasser, and turned out of possession, on tlie 
ground that there is no agreement. Where possession Iuh 
been given on the faitli of an agreement, a court of equity will, 
as far as possible, ascertain the terms of the agreement, and 
give effect to it.'' Nothing, however, is i)art performance that 
does not put the party into a situation that it is a fraud upon 
liim, if the agreement be not performed.^ In order, too, that 
an act of part performance may have any operation whatso- 
ever, it must be shown plainly what the terms of the a"-ree- 
mcnt arc, and it must clearly appear that the act of part per- 
formance relied on is properly referable to an agreement such 
as the one alleged and is not referable to another title.* The 
expenditure, for instance, by a tenant in possession on repairs, 
is referable to the title which he has in the estate, and cannot 

' Duke of Devonsliirc v. Eirlin, It Powell v. Lovei^rove, S D. JI. <t G 

Benv. 630; Duke of Beaufort !'. Patrick, or)7; I'ain i-. Coombs, 1 I). <fc J 84- 

17 15eav. 00 ; Wiiitc v. Wakley, 20 Be.iv. Lillio v. Legh, 3 D. «fc. J. 2iil ; Lincoln 

'Ji>; Laird I'. Birkenhead Railway Co., v. Wri:;Iit, 4 D. tt J. 10; Steevcna' 

.lolin. 500; FLshcr v. Moon, 11 L. T. N. IIos[>ital v. Dyas, 1.5 Ir. Cli.'403. 
>'^. 132;>. ' Clinan v. Cooke, 1 8ch. A Lef. 41. 

' Mundy »■. Jolliffe, 5 M. <t C. 177; * Fry on Specific IVrfonnance, 174. 

Wilson V. West Hartlepool Railway See Dale v. liauiilton, .5 Ha. 381 • Lin- 

• o., 2 D. J. «fc S. 473. See Bond v. coin v. Wriijlit, 4 D. »t J. 10; rriee »• 

Hopkins, 1 Sell. i.t Lef. 413, 433; Mor- Sahisburg, 32 Beav. 440; Lord »•. 

piiett V. Jone.-s, 1 Sw. 172 ; Surconibc i<. L'nderdoiick, 1 Sandf. Cli. (.\mer.), 40; 

I'inniger, 3 1>. M. «L- G. 571; Great Smith v. I'nderdonck, ib. 579; AVolfe 

Korlhern Railway Co. v, Lancashire, v. Froit, 4 Sandf. Ch. (Amor.), 72. 
ic, Roilway Co., 1 Sm. «fe G, 81; 



136 Misui:rur.sr,NTATiox. 

be deemed nn net of part jH'rritnnaiice.' Hut flu- laviii<,' out of 
inonev Ity a tenant in jnissession, in pursuance i>t" a parol a:,n*ee- 
ment for a leasee, or upon the faith of a 8j)ecitic en/;a_<;enient 
that possession shouhl not bo disturl)ed, is an act of part per- 
fonnanee.' So, also, and uj)on the same i>riii(ipli', the posses- 
sion of a tenant after the expiration of a hasc, is not a j)art 
performance, for it is referable to the title he has ;' but it is 
otherwise if the possession be referable to an agreement for 
renewal.* The mere payment of money is iu»t ]»art ])erform- 
anee,'^ nor is marria<;e an act of jiart performance, but if one of 
the contracting j)arties agrees, as the consideration for a mar- 
riage, to do something more tlian marry, as to settle an estate, 
and in consideration of that i)romise the other party contracts 
to make a settlement, the settlement made l>y the one con- 
tracting party is a good act of part performance' 

The general doctrine of law with resi)ect to misrepresenta- 
tion applies to cases where a man, by his negligent conduct, 
puts it in the ])ower of a third l>arty to commit a fraud upi»n 
another. If a num, by neglect of some duty that is owing to 
another, or to the general public, of which he is one, leads him 
to believe in the existence of a certain state of lacts, and the 
belief so induced is the proximate cause of leading him to do a 
certain act, whereby he is prejudiced, the former cannot be 
attenvards heard as against the latter to show at law that that 
state of facts did not exist.' The same j>riniMpU' obtains in 

'Wills r. Stra<llinpr. 3 Vos. .S78; 'Wills v. Sfrndlinff. .S Ve& 378; 

Pillinsr V. Aniiiiai;.'. I'i Vcs. 7S ; Snv- Lincoln v. Wrii^lif. -J 1). it J. W. 

n-:i- V. ('nrroii. 1 IS. .i 15. *2<,:, ; lirciinnn * Dowi-ll r. Dew, 1 V. A C. C. C. 

V. IJolton, '^ It. ik Wiir. ;i«H. .Sou 'Mr>. 

r.ainsdvii v. Dyson, L. 11. 1 Ajip. C.i, * Clinnn r. Cooke, 1 Sch. «t I,of. -11. 

Ijy. • lliinnncrnl» V v. Do lliil. 12 (1. .b 

' Willd V. Slrmllintj. 3 Vch. 378; Fin. 4.'i. Sec W'iir.l<n r. JoncH. 2 D. «b 

Mtin.lv r. JoHiiri>. 5 .M. A V. 107; J. 70; Colon v. Cnlon. h. U. 1 Cli. A|». 

Sutlii-rlnml r JJrl;::,'^, 1 lln. -jr.; Sliilli- 137. L' L. K. Ap. C.». 127. S.-c riirllior 

Ni'cr r. JiirviH, H D. .M. .V (J. 7y; l.iinl on tin* jtulyoct of part pcTform:miv. l-ry 

f. Hirkenlu'iiil Knilwnv Co., .lolin. .'on ; on S|K'(ihc I'lTfurnmnco, 171 — I'.to; 

N.irin r. Ful.ian, I.. U. 1 Hi. Aj.. :;.'.. ^iit;. V. A V. l.M)— 1^7; Durt. V. & V. 

.*«ec Itarnsdeu v. D}t»un, L. 11. 1 Aj'p. 0.'>& — •'•I'll. 

Co. 129. ' fewun r. North Auftxniusiau Ca, 



MISRKrRKSKNTATK IN. 137 

equity. If a man, iiltli(>u;,'li lie may be ac-tiii;^' iti the most en- 
tire •,'0oil faith, is ^'uilty of Budi a do^Tce of neglect m to 
fiialtk' aiinlhi'i- so to deal with that which is his ri;;ht, an to 
load ail iiiiiocfHt i>arty to assume that ho i.s <lealin;^ with his 
own, he ereates an e(|uity against himself in favor of the inno- 
cent party who has boon so mislud, and must bear the loss.' 
"It is a fj^enoral principle of eipiity," saiil 'riiriier, ]j. J,, in 
Tayler r. Great Indian Peninsular llailway Company,^ " that 
wherever one of two innocent parties must suffer by tlie acts 
of a third, he who has enabled the third party to occasion the 
loss must sustain it."' But to bring a case within the prin- 
ciple, it is necessary that the re[)reseutation allowed to Ito con- 
veyed to the mind of one of the two innocent parties, by the 
negligent conduct of the other, should be false, and that he 
should believe it to be true, and should not have the means 
which wuuM enable a reasonable man to discover the false- 
hood,* and that the negligence should be in respect of some 
duty cast upon the person who is guilty of it, and should be in 
the transaction itself, and should be a proximate and necessary 
cause of the transaction. It is not sulhcient that it should be 
only remotely connected with it.'' 

The application of the principle, and the determination of 
the better equity, as between two innocent parties, who have 
been defrauded by a third party, is often a matter of much 
nicety.* If there be anything in the transaction calculated to 



2 II. <fe C. 182. See Bank of Ireland * Vandeleur v. Blagrave, 17 L. .F. 

I'. Trustees of Evans' Charities, 5 II. L. Cli. 45. See Kennedy v. Green, .3 31. 

409. & K. 699. 

* Teasdnlc v. Teasdale, Sel. Ca. Ch. ' Swan v. North Eritisli Australn- 

5€ ; Evans v IVitknell, 6 Yes. 181 ; Van- sian Co., 2 H. & C. 182. See Trustees 

deleur v. Blaa;rave, 17 L. J. Ch. 45; of Evans' Charit}' v. Bank of Ireland. 

West V. Jones, 1 Sim. N. S. 205 ; Wal- 5 II. L. 389 ; Nicoll'a Case, 3 D. «t .J. 

dron V. Sloper, 1 Drew, 19:5; Perry 387. 

Ilerrick r. Attwood, 2 D. <k J. 21; * Sec Frazer r. Jonen, 5 ITa. 475, 17 

Layard i: Maud, L. U. 4 Eq. 404. L. J. Ch. S53; Jones v. Thomas, 11. W. 

*"4 I). A J. 559, 574. R. .50, 
' See Qreenfield t-. Edwards, 2 I). 
J. <& S. 582. 

10 



138 



MisKi:rin:sr.NTATioN. 



excite suspicicm, or to put <mc of tlie ]>artii'S iijitm iiifjniry, and 
he ftbstains from iii<iuiry, \\w cKiiSLMjuriu'i'S of liin own lu-i^loct 
must fall U|)on liiiii.' WIkm-c, fi»r instance, an innoc-ent party 
had oci'i'pti'd an instruincnt \vlii<li, upon its very face, waa 
devoid of lejxal validity, the court hcM tluit as between him 
and another innocent party, the loss must fall uj)on hini.' 

In cases where there is nothinfj to ])Jit either of the 
parties upon in<piiry, the court, in determining' the (piestion 
upon which of two innocent parties the loss must fall, has 
regard to the relation, if any, hctwcen the parties, an<l to 
their respective ri<;ht8 and omissions. Any negli<::ence or 
indiscretion on the part of the one, nuiy <;ive the other a 
better eiiuity.^ AVliere, for instance, a man havin<; dealin<;s 
with another, duly and formally executed a deed in respect of 
the dealing:?, and delivered the deed to the agent of the-other 
party, without receiving the purchase-moneys, and the agent 
received the moneys from his principal a!ul misai>i)rci])riated 
them, it was held that tlic loss must fall on the former, 
inasmuch as he had, by his negligence in delivering the deed 
to the agent, ])ut it into his power to commit the fraud.* A 
man who has permitted himself to be made a tool of by 
another, in whose hands he lias left the deed, cannot set up 
as against a third party, who has acted fairly and honestly in 
the transaction, that he has been deceived.' Wlicrc, on the 
other liand, a man having dealings with anotlur, in respect 



' Kennedy v. Green, 3 M. «t Iv. &W. 
Pec in/ra, Notick. 

* Tiivlor r. <;r<at Indian Peninsular 
Co., 4 1). A. J. '>'iO. Soo (Jottnm v. 
Kiwtern CouiitifH Knilwny Co.. 1 J. <t 
H. '243; Donnlduon r. (iillotf, L. K. 3 
K... 'J77. 

• Vnndrl.-iir »•. TUnirrnvc. •', I'.cnv M:>, 
IT L. J. •Ii. 4.'>: HiorMH ,-. iiitulidn. bl 
Ilenv. '.'.'.'.•; Wiildron <. ^!"l•'■r. 1 I)r«-\v. 
111.'!; CoUurii <■. K.ist.rn Couiitii-s Itail- 
wnv <'". 1 J. A Hn- -••'• : •'"-'"' •'• •'"I"'"'. 
S l>. V. <t J. '^CA ; 8|)niglit v. Cowm-, 1 



Ii. .t M. 3il»; Dowle v. Saunders. 2 II. 
A M. 'IM. 

• West I'. Jones. 1 Sim. N. S. 20S. 
Si'c Young V. White, 7 llenv. MS; 
YoHMfj r. <«uy, K Hen v. 147; (Jriflin *: 
( 'Inwcs. 'JO H<av. «il ; Kutlioiit r. Turner, 
r. W. K. f.7(i ; Wrnul r. Unwis. 25 Bc»v. 
3t'.'.t ; Siiiitli r. KvauH, 'JS Hcav. ft2 ; 
Wall V. (•..rkiriil, 3 I). F it J. 737; 10 
II. I-. 2J'J; AiUilts V. liiviH, 33 Beav. 

* Greenfield f. Edwards, 2 D. J. «b a 

fi'JO. 



MISREPRESENTATION. 1.39 

of which, tho .same jktsoii actod as a;,'('nt lor botli partica, 
delivered to the a^iit an iiistninicMt, reciting the payment of 
the j)iir('liasc'-nK)ni'ys, hut witliniii Hkj receipt i\>r the moneys 
bein^ 8i;^ncd, and the a^ent received tlie moneys in payment 
from tlic other l>arty, hnt did not pay them over to tho 
former, or inform liim that they -were in his liands, it was 
hekl that tlie latter, wlio hail jiaid the moneys iiito tlic hands 
of the agent; must hear the loss.^ 

The question as to which of two innocent parties nmst 
bear the loss occasioned by the fraufl of a third l>artj, 
sometimes arises in cases where a banker has paid moneys 
upon a forp^ed cheque. Payment on a forged cheque is not 
any payment at all as between the party paying and the 
person whose name is forged.^ Ihit cases may exist in which 
such payment may be made valid by reason of collateral 
matters. "Where there has been negligence or want of due 
caution in the circumstances that were the immediate cause 
of the payment, on the part of the person whose name is 
forged, he cannot set up the invalidity of the document as 
against his bankers, who have been induced thereby to pay 
moneys upon it, if it appears that they have acted in the 
matter with reasonable caution.' In Young r. Grote,* for 
instance, the customer of a bank signed a cheque in blauk, 
to be filled up by his wife, with whom he left it, and she 
filled it up with a sum of £50, written so inartificially that a 
servant was able to insert the words " three hundred " before 
the word "fifty," so as to deceive the bank without blame 
on their part. It was held that the loss must fall on the 
customer. 



' Vandcleur r. Blacravc, 6 Bcav. 565, * Orr r. Union Bank of Scotland. 1 

17 L. J. Ch. 45. See Rusbout v. Turner, Mncq. 513. 

5 W. H. f.TO; Ocilvic r. Juaffreson. 2 ' Jh. .'.•23; British Linen Co. »■. Cale- 

OifT. s.'iS ; Spaiixht v. Cowne, 1 H. <t M. tlonian Insurance Co. 4 Macq. 114. 

3.-,'.); AVall r. Cockcrell. 10 U. L. 229; M Bing. 253. 
Adsetts I'. Ilives. 33 Beav. 02. 



iin 



■MISnri'Ul.sr.NTATlON, 



In eases arisiii*; bftwei'ii Xhv nwiur of the li'i!::il rstato, 
or n first in()rt<;a<;ce, ami a prrsi'ii who rhiiiiis an equity 
iijHUi the c>tate, or the title ileeds, the aj»i>lii'atioii of the 
])rinciple dilVers from the rule whieli aj»i)lies' in ordinary 
eases. In order that the owner of the lej^al estate, or iirst 
niort^aixee, sliouhl l»e postpcnutl to a subsequent incund>ra'ncer, 
it is not suftieicnt to make out a ease of mere nej;lij,'en(e. To 
liave that elTeet, a case of gross negligence must he made out.' 
If a man, in taking tlie legal estate, makes no inquiry for 
the title deeds, but allows them to remain in the hands of 
the vendor or mortgagor, his conduct aH'ords evidence of an 
amount of negligence suliicient to justify the court in im- 
putintr to him a knowledi^e of those facts which, bv the use 



• Peter v. Russell, 2 Vern. 726 ; Evans 
•. Bicknc-ll, r. Vcs. 171, I'.'l ; C'olyer i-. 
riiicli. r» 11. L. '.'<>.'> ; Carter v. Carter, o 
K. «fc J. 040 ; Terry llcrrick v. .Attwood, 
2 D. «fc J. 21. The distinction between 
mere negligence nnd gross nei^ligence 
was recognized by tlie Konian lawyers. 
Culpa levis, in the laiigmigeof the Koia- 
an law, is the want of that diligence 
wliich is talicn by jirudent, careful 
jiersons ; ciiljia lutd is tlie want of tiiat 
diligence wiiich might be e.xp'ctcd even 
ol a per-ion of le.ss tlian ordinary j)ru- 
'Jence. Llndl. on Jur. IHI, Culpi Itit.i 
wajj conBulered generally e()u:vuient to 
(I'Jitx. Lata culjiij Jolocoiiij>aralur. L)ig. 
11, tit. C, let.'. 1, ^ 1. " Lata cnl/ia cjit 
'.iinia iiti/lif/eiiiiii, Id est non intflliijcre 
qifjil oiniun intelli;/init." Dig. Lib. rdi, 
tit. it'i, leg. 2i;{. "Si gulu uonalfum 
tpoiltan iiu'in nnminum natiira dcsiJerat 
diligeu* ft, fruude uon cant." l>ig. 
Lib. 16, tit. :J. leg. 32. " S,nim» est," 
lulda a commcntutor, Hi., " latmn mi/tain 
duitbun indl'iii dej>r</irndi. J'rimo *i 
oitit nun ad eutn tinfliim fac'mt, ijtio 
omnfH h<niiiur» JiirimU ; allrro, m ijui» 
fi'»/i toilrin tii'fdo in rr alirtiii iir nt HHiii 
rtbuM vrrtetur ; utrumifur ditto jinuhnum 
t»t. Jjrru eM fpfitii* enndein in iilicnin 
ifunin in «M'« rrltiiit dili'jrntiain et fidfin 
prtr»titt, noH tamen e<iin t/uiun cintun- 
thtrtioren himiinei el diliffiHtiMtiini iiithi- 
(tttit: ft, ut piuci' dieitiu, levm cuI/hi e*t 
cuntuela in ribtf iuis tl utitnia nrijliijen- 



tia ; lata ent in *mi* dllir/entia, in nlietiin 
iictiliprntia.'' If the fanlt is one which 
any man in his senses wouKI have 
scrupled to commit, tiier<> is lata cuIjhi: 
if the fault consists in falling tAvirl of 
the hi^:hest standard of carefulness to 
avoid injury that could bo found ; such, 
for instance, as the carefulness ern- 
l>loycd in the manngeinent of affairs by 
a person who wi>uld ileserve to be called 
(iiiiiKs fi'itrrj'amiiiii.^, tl.e eid/ta was Irris 
or li risxiinn. Or. again, it might consist 
in falling short of the caro whicii tiio 
person guilty of the culpa was aceus- 
toMjed to bestow on liis own atl'air.s. 
/,<i/a ci«///a was treated very much on 
the same footing as doliiii, as there al- 
ways seems something wilful in the c.\- 
tr<-me negligence, the rrns.ii tiei/lifjentia 
which characteri/.ed the lata culpa. — 
Sandars' Inst, p 477. When it is said 
by the Ilonnm lawyers tliat neglii^ence, 
heedlessness, or rashness is e<juivali-ni, 
in certain cases, to dolus, the meaning 
is, that, juiliring from the conduct of 
the party, it is impo><siblo to determine 
whether he intendeij, or whether he 
was negligent, heeille'<s. or rasli ; nnd 
that, Hucli being the case, it shall be 

|)resumed that he intemli'd, and his 
lability shall be ndjudgeil accordingly, 
provided that the (luesiion arise in a 
civd action. — Austin sLect on Jur. vol. 
11. p. 1«>7. 



:\I 1 .s K i ; 1 • K ICSK is TAT 1 ( » X . 141 

of onliiiary cliligenci! he imi.-t iiiivc discdvcrc"!. So, also, 
^^rus.s n('';li.i;c'iice Avill 1)0 iinputrd to :i iiiaii who, having 
jiartcd w ith the tilli; dcffis Inr a ri'iisoiialdo juirjio.-c, ;dloWH 
them to rniialii out of his ]iossi'.s.-.i()ii f(>r an univasonaLlL* 
time. liiit if a man, on takiii^^ tho ic^^^al estate bond Jid. 
inquires for the title deeds, and a n-asonalde explanation or 
excuse is given for their n(»n-delivery, or if he parts vvitli 
them lor a reasonahh' juirposc, and does not allow them to 
remain ont of his hands without making reasonable inquirie.4 
for them, or using reasonable endeavors to get them bach, 
gross negligence will not be imjiuted to him, althouglj a 
fraud may be practised by means oi Ihem upon an innocent 
party.^ 

In cases, however, where the contest lies between parties 
liaving merely equitable interests, unaccompanied by the legal 
estate, an eipiitable mortgagee who either omits to get, or 
who having got the deeds, gives them u}), and thereby arms 
the mortgagor with the means of dealing with the estate, as 
the absolute legal or equitable owner, free from any shadow of 
incumbrance or adverse equity, will be posti>oned to another 
equitable incumbrancer who has got possession of the deeds, 
and whose equity in other respects is of the same nature and 
quality. '^ In examining into the relative merits or equities 
of two parties having adverse equitable interests, the court 
directs its attention not only to the nature and conditions of 
their respective equitable interests, but to the circumstances of 



• Tetcr V. KupppII, 2 Vcrn. 7'2i'. ; Mar- Ernest, 3 D. J. A: S. IIG. See Allen >: 

tinez V. Cooper, 2 lliiss. I'.tS ; Farrow v. Kniijht, 1 1 .Tur. f>27 ; Dnwle v. Saunders, 

Rees, 4 Beav. 18; Stevens c. Stevens, 2 211. it M. 212; but see Layard i; MauJ, 

Coll. 20; Wortliington v. Morgan, 10 L. U. 4 Ktj. 40r,, y«r .Mnlins. V.-C. 
Sim. 547; Hewitt »•. Looseinore, V) Ila. ' Allen v. Knii^ht, 5 Ha. 272, 11 Jnr. 

449; Rayne i'. IJaker, 1 Giff. 2I(); Col- 527; Waldron v. Sloper. 1 Drew. 193 

ver i\ Fiiieli, .'i H. L. do'i; I'arter c Rice r. Kioe, 2 Drew, iy'-j; I'owlc « 

Carter, :> K. it J. 040; I'err}- llerrick Saunders, 2 II. it .M. 242; Layard u 

f. Attwood, 2 D. it J. 21 ; Hunt i-. Maud, L. R. 4 K^]. «'J7. 
Elmes, 2 D. F. «k J. 578 ; Uop^-ood v. 



1 I'J :MISKi:rilESENTATl(1\. 

tlii'ir a('(|ui>ititin, and \\iv. whulo cuiuliu'l of viwh \KXvt\ with 
respect thereto.* 

No priority can be accpiired tliroui^li the iiu'(liniii of a 
breach t»f duty.' Nci^lii^i'iice will ii(»t he imputed to a man 
for leaving his title deeds in the liands of his solicitor', or 
tleliverintj a transfer of shares and certificates to a bmker for 
the j)uri»use uf registration * ; nor will negligence he imputed 
to trustees for leaving documents of title in the hands of ono 
of their numher', or a corporation seal in tin- hands of their 
secretary.' 

In the case of etjuitahlo interests in jiersonal estate, or 
choses in acti(tn, a ]>unhaser or other incund)rancer, who fails 
to give notice of his interest to the j»ers(»n in possession of the 
fund, will he postj)oned to an incuinhrancer, tliough suhse- 
quent in date, who gives notice.' Jhit this rule has no a|>- 
plication whatever to real estate. As between equitable 
incundtrancers of real estate, he whose security is prior in 
date, has the better eipiity. lie who takes the lirst security 
is entitled to priority over a per.-(jn who takes a subse(pK'nt 
security, notwithstanding that the latter may have been be- 
foreliand in giving the party in possession of the estate notice 
of his security.® An I'ljuitaMr incuiiiliranccr on real estate is 
not as against another i-quitable incund)rancer postponed by 
any absence of activity in asserting his legal right, except 
such as amounts to fraud." 



' Rico f. nice, 2 Drew. 80. • Bnnk of Irclnnd r. Trustees of 

' ("orv r. Kvrc, 1 D. J. «k S. 110. Evniis" Clinrifnn. r. M. L. lo'.t. 

* Ib.,'lk>u>n V. Wlllioms, 8 Y. & J. ' Dinrlu r. Hull. :> Uush. 1; Ix)ve. 
150. r'uV^'- r. ('t)i>|iir. ilt. llO; Fosiir i'. Hlnrk- 

* Donald Hoii t>. (;illott, L. U. 11 Kij. !.t(.iii'. 1 .M. it K. T.*l ; Miirliii c Scdu- 
277. wick. U Hrav. .H:t:{; Ktty »•. nriil;,M'i«, 2 

* CVittnni r. Kn'ttcrn (ViuntioH Hnil- Y. tV ('. ('. ('. -IM; Tliuin|)S()ii v. Toni- 
way Co. 1 .1. A H. 24.J. Sec Ciirt.r v. kins. 2 Dr. A- Sm. H. 

Carter. .'{ K. A- J. t'.l7; StucklmuBi' v. ' .loii.-t r. Johch. 8 Sim. 0J2; Wilt- 

Counti-As of J»Tccv, 1 J. A H. 721; Hliin- r. Kalil'it-', IJ Sim, 7il. 

Doddij r. Hills, 2 ll. 4 M. 421. ' ICooi.rr .. llarriBon, 2 K. 4 J. 103. 



riiAt 1) i'r;:su.ml:d. 143 



SECTION III.— FRAUD To I'.K PRESUMED FIIOM TIIi: 
INHQUAI^ITY OF FOOTING OF Till: I'AKTIJ^S.— IN- 
A!)1:qI'A('Y of CONSIDERATION. 

BicsiDKs that l<iii<l dt" tVaiKl wliich consists in misrepresenta- 
tion, express nr implied, there is unotlier wliidi will be pre- 
sumed, when parties to a transaction do not stand upon the 
C(|nal looting; on whie-li ])arties to a transaction sliould stand.* 
The fi^eneral theory of tlic law, in i-ei^ard to acts (hjne and con- 
tracts made by parties allectin^ their ri<j^hts and interests 
being that, in order to bind them tliere must be a free and 
full consent, and consent being an act of reason accompanied 
with deliberation, transactions, in which one of the parties is 
not as free and voluntary an agent as the other, or does not 
apprehend the meaning and ctiect of what lie is doing, want 
the very qualities which are essential to the validity of all 
transactions,'^ In order that there should be consent, it is 
essential that the consent should be given with reflection and 
■with knowledge, freely, without restraint or surprise. Fraud, 
therefore, whether consisting in misrepresentation, conceal- 
ment, violence, duress, or constraint, will nullify consent.' It 
is npon this principle that when a person, who from his state of 
mind, age, weakness, or other peculiar circumstances, is inca- 
pable of exercising a free discretion, is induced by another to 
do any act, which may tend to the injury of himself or his 
representatives, that other shall not be allowed to derive any 
benefit from his improper conduct. The equitable rule is of 
universal application that where a man is not a free agent, 



• Edwards v. Mcvrick. 2 Ila. 68. » Toull. Cod. Civ. liv. 3, tit. 8, § 2, 

• Story's Eq Jur. g 222. n. 38. 



Ill ruAiK i-:;: sim:;!). 

or is nut ct|ual to protieliiii^ himsulf, llio c<uirt will ]>rotcct 
liiin.* * 

It i< upon lli(> u:(mut;i1 ^'r<»iMi<l flint llicrc is ;i want of 
nitional and dclilicrato cniiM-iit that tin- cuiitracts of idiots, 
lunatics, and dther |>erson.s lum vtonpotcti jniiitin, are jjenerally 
(U'oniod iiivali<l by a court of C(iuity. The nuTc fact, liowcvor, 
that a man is in a state of lunacy, or is even in cuntinenient, 
Mill not ]» r se induce the court to interfere, if it be dibtinctly 



' Evnns r. Llowellvn. 1 Cox, 310; Monk. 10 Jnr. N. R. r.Ol ; Williams «•. 
Crowo V. Unllaril. 1 Ves. Jr. 21.'>; Cas- Bayliy, L. K. 1 Ai.p. Ca. 2">0. 
borne r. Barsham, '1 IJoav. 7»>; IJaki-r r. 



♦ Butler T. Haskell. 4 Dessau. 051 ; McCormick r. Malin, 5 Blarkf. 50:]; 
nii.'li!>erger r. Stillkr, 21 Md. 338; Ilalktt r. Collins, 10 IIow. 174; Hunch 
r. Hurst. 3 Dessau. 273; Brogden r. Walker, 2 II, & J. 2S.j; Whtlan v. 
Whelan. 3 Cow. 537; KeeMc r. Cummins, 5 Iley. 43; King r. Colion, 
Ycrir. l-t: Mason r. Williams. :'. :Munf. 120; Wliipph- r. JlcCIure, 2 Root. 
21G; McDaniel r. Moorman, 1 Harp. Cli. 108; Rutiurlonl r. Kull', 4 Dessau. 
350; James r. Lanj; Ion, 7 B. :Mon. 193; Brice r. Brice, 5 Barl) 533 ; Tnicey 
r. Sat-kctt, 1 Ohio St. B. 54; Cook r. Cole, 2 Halst. Cli. 522, C77; Crad- 
d«)ck r. Caljines?, 1 Swan, 474; Kelly r. McGuire, 15 Ark. 555; Freeland 
r. EI<lritl.'re, Ifl Mo 325; Freeman v Durjr<iin, 2 Jones' Ya\. 1G2; Hill r. 
McLaurin, 28 Miss. 288; Marshall r. BlliJHgslea, 7 Ind. 250; Martin r. 
Martin, 35 Ala. 500; Franklin r. ICidenour, 5 Jones' Ya\. 420. 

By weakness of mind is meant a sort of mental imbecility approaching 
to the condition of one who is actually non comjms meutU and unalogoua 
lo childishness and dotage. Owing's case, 1 Bland, 370. 

The only point of inquiry is in regard to the condition of the grantor's 
mind at the time of executing the instrument. IJickwith r. lUitler, 1 
Wa-h. (Vu.) 224. 

A court of equity will not impute fraud merely liccausc one party is 
more intelligent than the other, although the bargain may turn out :idvan- 
tngeously to the wi.ser party. Faniani r. Brooks, 9 Pick. 212; Annan r 
Stout, 42 Penn 114; Thomas r. Shtpperd, 2 McCord's Ch. 30; Mann r. 
Betterly, 21 Vt. 320. 

Courts will not measure the degree of a man's unthrsfanding, but they 
will scrutinize all the transactions of persons of weidv niind.s. Connnt r. 
Juckson, 10 Yt. 335; Hadley r. Latimer, 3 Yerg. 537. 

Great distresH of nund and a proffer of os-istance arc circiunstanres 
that will be considered in d< termining wlu-ther a trans iction i.s fraudulent. 
Diamukcs r. Terry, Walk. 107; WilMin r. Watt.-*, SI >bl. 350. 



ruAii) I'Kr.suMKi). 115 

pliowii tliat llif trai'.s.'icf idii was lor liis own licncfit, that no 
coorcioii or iiiijKisilinii was iisi-il, and that ho knew clearly 
what lit' was (ioiiiii;* and so an cxcciitctl contract, where jmr- 
tics have been dealing iiiirlj and in i:^^iiorancc of the Innacy, 
will not he set aside, if injnsticc wonld be done to the other 
side and tlie ]iai-tie.s cannot be ])laccd in nidtu quo, or in the 
])0siti(in in wliicli f hey stood before tlie transaction." j!iit this 
rule is not applicable to a case where tlie (jm-stion is whether 
the deed of a lunatic altering; the jjrovisions of a settlement is 
invalid.^ 

The same rule prevails at law. To prove lunacy is not 
enough to avoid a contract. A contract entered into hona fide 
and in the ordinary course of business, is not void by reason 
of one of the parties having been at the time a lunatic* To 
vitiate the contract, it must appear that the other j^arty was 
aware of the fact of lunacy and took advantage of it.' 

A party claiming under a deed, is not bound to jirove the 
sanity of the per^on executing it. The burden of proof lies on 
the other side." 

Independently of tluit degree of imbecility which will 
render a man legally noii compos, a conveyance may be 
impeached ior mere weakness of intellect, provided it be 
coupled with other circumstances to show that the weakness, 
such as it is, has been taken advantage of by the other party ; 
but the mere foct that a man is of weak understanding or is in 
intellectual capacity below the average of mankind, if there be 
no fraud, or no undue advantage be taken, is not of itself an 



• Selby f. Jackson, 6 Beav. 192, f. Pcrrincrton, 3 Jfac. tt G. -IRO ; Camp 

204. Si'O Townrt r. Sellers, 5 Dow, bell c Hooper. '^ Sm. ct (J. ir>;>. 
231 ; Nelson v. Duncombe. 9 IJeav. 211 ; ' Elliott v, Inee, 7 1>. M. k V,, 475. 

ynook c. Watts, 11 Ileav. 105; bted- * Molton r. Canmmx. 4 Exch. 17. 

man 1'. Hart, Kuv, (■■n7. * Beavan r. McDonnell, lo E.\ch.. 

" Niell V. Morley, 9 Ves. 478, 4S2; 184. 
Williams v. Wentworth, 5 Bcav. 32.5 ; • Jacobs v Richards, 18 lieav. 305. 

Jacobs I'. Richards, ISBeav. oOO; Price 



14G 



I'UAri) imm:simi:i). 



ntlo»iuate •ground to set asit.le :i traiisactioii.* * Till a inaii bo 
doflarcil li'ijally non compos, a (KtiI cM-ciitcd l»y liim is good.' 
The coininon law has not drawn any discriniiiiatiiii: line by 
winch to dc'terniine how great ninst he the inihecility of mind 
to render a transaction void and how much intellect is ncees- 
Barv to snpp<»rt it.^ Tiu' houiidarirs ln-tween actual insanity 
and irreat mental weakness are so verv narntw that the court 
must judge of this in each case u])on facts and circuinstances.'f 
With regard to what shall constitute mental capacity, the 
rule in etpiity is the same as the rule at law. " There cannot," 
said Lord Ilardwicke, in Bennett v. AVadc,' "he two rules of 
judging in law and in equity upon the point of insanity ;" and 
in Osmond v. Fit/roy," the Master of tlie Kolls said there was 



' Blnrhford v. Cliristiiin, 1 Knnpp, 
T3 ; I{:ill »•. Mannin, 3 liligh, N. S. 1, 1 
Dow. A n. .'{81. 

» Osmoml r. Fitzroy, 3 P. Wms. 129. 
Soo Uartuiilc v. Islicrwooil, 1 liro. C. O. 
6:.y ■. Jaciib-s ('. Uiiliiinla. 18 Ik-iiv. 300. 
Coinp. Evuiis I'. Blood, 3 Bro V. C. 
6;J2. 

' Jnckson v. Kinfj, 4 Cow. (Amor.), 
207 ; Manby r. Bowicke, 3 IC <& J. 
812. 

♦ Bunnott v. \V:ul.«, 9 Mod. 315. Sco 
White «'. Small, 2 Cli. Ca. 103; Bell i'. 
lioward, 'J Mod. 802; iiuddon v. Beau- 



champ. 3Blii;li. 20 D.; Addis r.CampboU. 
4 Bfjiv. 4<»| ; llarrod r. llarrod. 1 K. «fc 
.1. 7 ; Lidif^mate v. LodijiT, 2 Giff. h)3 ; 
Clarke v. Sawyer, 3 Sandf. (Amer. ), 
357. See, as to want of assent arising 
from partial insanity, monomania, de- 
lusion, itc, ite., l)ew 1'. Clarke, 5 lluss. 
lt>7; Waring v. Warin;;, 6 Moo. P. C. 
341 ; Creaijh r. Blood. 2 .1. A' L. 50S>. 
See also Steeil r. Calley, 1 Keen, 620. 

' 2 Atk. 327. 

•3 r. Wins. 130. 



♦ Wilson ». Watts, 9 mi 350 ; Smith v. Bcatty, 2 Iretl. Eq. 4.')0 ; Far- 
nam r. Brooks, 9 Pick. 212; Simeon v. Wilson, 3 Eilw. Cli. 30; Owintj'g 
Casi-. 1 Bland. I'.TO ; Clark r. Clark, 3 Hey, 23; Day r. Seiley, 17 Vt, 542; 
Whitihorn r. Ilitu-s, 1 Muiit. 557; McCruw v. Davis, 2 Irod. Eq. 618 ; 
Buffalow r. Buiraiow, 2 Dcv. A: Bat. Kq. 211; Yoiiii;,' r. Stevon.s, 4H N. H. 
133; Hippy r. CJraiit, 4 Irud. Eq. 443; Spraguc r. Duel, 11 Paii;c, 480 ; 
Mace r. Boycr, 30 Pcnn. 99; Ousa v. Mason, 4 Siiei'd, 497 ; Walton c. 
Wortliinnton, 5 Hncod, 282 ; DiiviH v. McNalloy, 5 Snood, 383. 

Apo'^ition in a coiirt of justice foundoil upon what is in olfict the stulti- 
firatiun of the jfOfHon \vhoa>*sum(H that j)ositi<)n is one to be considered 
with much dillidcnce. Eyre r Poitor, 15 llnw. 13. 

t Uwin;,''» Case, 1 Blan«l. 370; Harding r. Handy, 11 Wheal. 103; 
Young r. Stevens, 48 N. II. 133. 



FKAi I) i'i:i;si .Mi;i*. 1J7 

no such tiling as an (.'(juituMu incapacity, wlivrc tlicre was u 
Ic^al ca|»acity.* 

IfiiiiKiu In- (Inink 1(» the extent of ciniii'lrtc intoxication, 
so as to he no Inimci- under tliu ^Miidance ol" re:i.son, or is in a 
state of excitement from excessive drinkin;^, almost amonntin;^ 
to madness, any transaction wliicli he may enter into while lie 
is in that state is invalid." If, however, the degree of intoxi- 
cation falls fliort of sncli conij)lete intoxication, he cannot have 
relief, unless it appear that he was di-a\vn in to drink by the 
contrivance of the other party, and that an unfair advantai^o 
was taken of Ids sitnati(»n.^t The rule at law on the subject 
agrees with the rule in c(pnty.^ 

The rule is the same Loth at law and in equity with respect 
to the general incapacity of infants to enter into a binding con- 
tract. A man who enters into a contract during his minority 
is not cither at law or in equity bound thereby after his 
majority on the mere ground that without any false assertion 

• See Manby v. Bewicke, 3 K. <fe. J. 539; Wiltshire ?•. Marshall. 1} W. R. 

342. 0'»2. Soc Addis )•. ( 'aiiiiibfll, 4 iJcav. 

" Cory V. Cory, 1 Vcs. 19; Cooke ?■. 401 ; Martin v. Pycmlt, 2 D M. <fe (;. 

Clnyworth, IH Ves. Ifi ; Snv )'. liiirwick, 8ui); Gardner v. Gardner, 22 Wend. 

1 V. A- n. 195; BntliT I'.'Mulvihill, 1 (Anicr.), 526. 

Bli^h, l-M ; Liglitfoot v. llrron, :i Y. <fc ' Gore v. Gibson, 13 JI. <t W. 623, 

C. 686; Nagle r. Baylor, 3 Dr. ik War. 626; Molton v. Camroux, 4 Exch. 17, 

60; Shaw v. Thackeray, 1 Sm. tk G. 19; Hawkins v. Bone, 4 F. <k F. 313. 



♦Prentice v. Achom, 2 Pais^e, 30; "Wiprglesworth v. Steer.-;, 1 II. S: M. 
70; Hutchinson v. Brown, 1 Clark, 408; Crane v. Conklin, Saxton, 346; 
Morrison r. McLcoa, 2 Dcv. & Bat Ch. 221 ; Ilutcliinson v. Tindal, 2 Green's 
Ch. 357; Cruise r. Christopher, 5 Dana, 181 ; French v. French, 8 Ohio, 
214; Galloway v. Witherspoon, 5 Ired. Eq. 128; Phillips v. Moore, 11 Mo. 
600. 

Habitual drunkenness, in the absence of undue advantage, is not suffi- 
cient ground for setting aside an instrument. Reinicker p. Smith, 2 H. & 
J. 421. 

t White r. Cox, 3 Hey. 79 ; Belcher r. Belcher, 10 Yerg. 121 ; Hotchkiss 
r. Fortson, 7 Yerg. 67 ; Maxwell r. Pettinger. 2 Green's Ch. l.")0 ; Bodnian i: 
Gilley, Saxlon, 320; Whitesides r. Greenlee, 2 Dev. Ch. 152; GriJiith e. 
Frederick Co. Bank, 6 G. & J. 424 ; Dunn c. Amoss, 14 Wis. 106. 



118 



ri;Ai 1) ri::.>i?iir.D. 



on his part the other jmrty la-lievcd him t.t l)i' of a^^'c' V<u\ if 
an infant hy a falso and frauilulent rcprcbentatiun that lie is of 
full airi> iiulnces a man to enter into a contract with hiui, he is 
hound in e<iuity,' although he is not liahh' at law/ •''■ Infancy 
is not in ecjuity an excuse for fraud. An iiifai.t who is old 
and cuiinini; ciiouirh to contrive or carry on a fraud is bound 
in the same manner as if he were an adult.* It is not neces- 
sary that lie should actively encourai^'e fraud. It is enough if 
lie be privy to it. If an infant knowinri^ his rights stands by 
and seeing another in treaty for the imrchaseof his estate gives 
no notice of his title, he will not be i)erniitted afterwards to 
avoid the purchase.' f An infant cannot be allo.ved by a 
court of equity to take advantage of his own fraud." Where 
an infant had obtained from a creditor of liis wife two promis- 
sory notes, in which he was indebted to him before marriage, 
on giving his bond to the creditor, he was ordered to give 
back the notes on his pleading infancy when sued on the 
bond.' 

At law a married woman is under an absolute incapacity to 
bind herself by any engagement. Her separate existence is 
not contemplated, but is merged by the coverture in that of 
the husband. Ihit in e(piity the ca.>e is wholly ditlereiit. Her 

' Stikemnn r. Da-.vson, 1 Dig. tt Sm. riiiiliurst. 9 Kxcli. 422; I>artlett v. 

105. W.ll^. 1 R Ji S. sue. 

•Tory f. r.crtikcn, 2 Mudd. 40; MVutts i. Cnsswell. 9 Vin. Ab. 415 : 

Wriclit" r. Snow.', '.J l>i-:r- A !^">- 321 ; F.vniy >•. Nieliolns. 2 Kq. Ca. Ali. 4ti9; 

i:r-j>(xrte I'liily Hank, ;t I>. it J. <">:t ; Arnot r. Hisc-oc, 1 Vc-*. '.•.'•; /xr Lonl 

Ilannitli v. llfxltjson, .';ii llfiiv. 2:j. lianhvirkt'. Hcckftt r. l'i>nlli'y, 1 Hrt). 

» oiiip. J-.'rjMirte Tiivlor, H I>. M. tt IJ. I'. ('. :!.'>S ; but m-c SuumUrson r. Murr, 

254 ; Ni1m.ii i-. Stockcr, 4 1). & J. 45S; 1 H. HI. 76. 
but HOC Bartlett f. Wells, 1 IJ. A S. * Savn-^o v. Foster. 9 Mod. 37. 

83fi. • llurko V. t'obli-y, 2 Vox. 17:1. 

» Johniwin V. Vyo, 1 Sid. 258. 1 K.;!). ' I/>. Sue Jones "r. Kenrnoy, 1 Dr. «k 

913; LiveriKX*! Adciphl Associntioii r. War. 100. 



• Brown r. McC'iiiic. r» S:in<lf. 221; Conroo r. IJinisall. 1 Johns. 127; 
IJurl.y r. Hi:k.s< 11, H) N. 11. 1^1 : Sloolfoos r. Ji-nkiv.s, 12 S. A- 1{. :}90. 

tlluntir r. Fostir, 4 Humph. 211 ; Hall r. Timmons, 2 Uirh. Kq. 120; 
WUi'.tinglon r. Wright, Geo. 23; llarham r. Tubtrville, 1 Swan, 437. 



ri;.\( 1) ruiisiMr.i). 1 1'j 

8C{);irate cxistoiict", bulli as iv;^anl.-> liur liubilitii-s and lier 
ri<,Mits, is acknowledged in equity to tlie extent of the jd'operty 
wliicli she eMJdy.-^ I'or her sejtarate u>v. In rc^jicct ui' huch 
property she is eaj)ahle of disposition and of doing other acts, 
as if she were iiftiue aoh,'} In respect of ])r<)perty not settled 
to her separate use, a married woman cannot bind herself in 
equity in matter of contract any more than she can at law, but 
coverture is no excuse in c(piity for a traud.'* The acquies- 

* Murray v. Bnrloe, 3 M. «t K. 220 ; » Snvnffo v. Foster. 9 Mod. 37 ; Evnns 

Vnughtiii V. VuiiiltTdtc2;eii, 2 ])re\v. v. iJickia-ll, Wa. 181; per Lord 

3711 ; Johnson v. Gallaglier, 3 D. F. &, Kldoii, Vaugliaa v. Vauderstegvn, 2 

J. 494. L>nj\v. o7'J. 



♦ Sexton V. Wlieaton, 8 Wheat. 229 ; ITimtcr r. Foster, 4 ITumph. 211 ; 
Cravens v. Booth, 8 Tex. 24:3; Bailey v. Trammel, 27 Tex. 317; Ikin v. 
Heath, 6 How. (Miss.) 238; Couch v. Sutton, 1 Grant, 114. 

A married woman can not be made perscmally liaMe for a fraud com- 
mitted by her, even ia respect to the .«alc of lier separate estate. Curd t. 
Dodd, 6 Bush, 081. 

The contraet of a married woman is not made valid by the fact that 
she represented herself to be single at the time she gave it, and thereby 
obtained the consideration upon which it was given. Keen v. Coleman, 
8'J Penn. 2119. 

An action will not lie against a husiiand and his wife for her false 
representation that she was a. feme sole at the time of executing a contract, 
and obtaining the consideration therefor. Keen v. Uartman, 48 Penn. 
497. 

Althouirh a married woman may know that her husband is obtaining 
credit on the faith of her proj^crty, she will not be made respon>il)li' be- 
cause of her silence. Bank of United States r. Lee, 13 Pet. lo7 ; Hunter v. 
Foster, 4 Humph. 211, 

A married woman is not estopped from asserting her claim to i>roperty 
on account of a fraud committed by her husband, unless it is further 
shown that she participated in his deceitful conduct. Galling c. Rodman, 
G Ind. 289. 

The doctrine of estojipel by more. omission to assert one's rights does 
not apply to the wife when her husi>and makes an unauthorized use of 
her property in her presence. Drake v. Glover, 30 Ala. 382 ; Mcintosh c. 
Smith, 2 La. An. 75G ; Palmer v. Cross, 1 Smed. & Mar. 43. 

Positive acts of encouragement that sometimes operate to estop ono 
sui generis, will not affect one under a legal disability. Glid<len r. Strip- 
pier, 52 Penn. 400. 



ir»0 rUAl I) I'llKSlMHl). 

ccncc however of :i iiKirritd uoinan in a transaction will not 
l.inil Ijor, if tho i)ors*on witli whom tlio trant^action was entered 
into ktu'w tliat she was a married woman.** 

Tlie i>rineii)le wliieli vitiates a contraet witli an ineai)aei- 
tatcd person lias been extended in ecinity to cases where from 
the iHH'iiliar n-laticn wliit-li sulisists between the jiarties, or 
from the intluenee which the one l>arty has accjuired over the 
other, the freedom of action which is essential to the validity 
of all transactions is overcome, and the eqnal footing on which 
parties to a transaction shonld stand is destroyed.' 

If the relation between the parties is one of a fiduciary na- 
ture, transactions between them are watched by a court of 
equity with more than ordinary jealousy. The duty of a per- 
son who fills a fiduciary position being to protect the interests 
which arc confided to his care, he may not avail himself of the 
influence which his position gives him for the purposes of his 
own benefit, and to the prejudice of those interests which he is 
bound to protect. It is a rule of equity that no man can be 
pennitted to take a benefit where he has a duty to perform 
which is inconsistent witli his acceptance of the benefit.' 
Wherever two persons stand in such a relation that, while it 
continues, confidence is necessarily rejiosed by the one and the 
influence which naturally grows out of that confidence is pos- 
sessed by the other, and this confidence is abused or the influ- 
ence is exerted to obtain an advantage at the expense of the 
confiding party, the ])erson so availing himself of his position 
will not be permitted to retain the advantage, although the 



• Nicholl f. .)(,n(^. '.'.r, L. J. rii. r.r.l. I.oninnnto <: l.aV^or, 2 (ulT. l.'.?; Bnr- 

» Sf.' CnflM.rnL- v. i;iir.-luim, 2 15inv. rt-tt r lluitlcy. L. K. 2 i:«|. TK'.i. 
76 ; Kdwnrds v. Mi-yrick, 2 llo. t,o ; * UobiiiHoii f. I'ctt, 3 1*. Wmu. 249. 



• WUks V. Fitzpatrjck, 1 Humph. 54; Glidilcn r. StriiipUr, 52 Pcnn. 
400. 



rilAI I) IMJr.SIMIJ). l."il 

transaction coiilil Tint Imvo been imj)eached if no sucli confiden- 
tial ri'latidii liatl sultsistcd.* 

The rnlo of c(|uity 'vvliifli ])roliibit8 a iiiaii, avIio fills a 
position of a fiduciary character, from taking a benefit from 
the person towards whom he stands in such a relation, stands 
upon a motive of general public policy, irrespective of the 
particular circumstances of the case. The rule is f(;unded on 
considerations as to the difficulty which must, from the con- 
dition of the parties, cjenerally exist, of obtaining positive 
evidence as to the fairness of transactions which ai-e j)eculiarly 
open to fraud and undue influence. The policy of the rule is 
to shut the door against temptation.' 

The rule docs not, however, go the length of avoiding all 
transactions between parties standing in a fiduciary relation, 
and those toward Avliom they stand in such relation. All that 
a court of equity requires is, that the confidence which has 
been reposed be not betrayed. A transaction between them 
will be supported, if it can be shown to the satisfiiction of the 
court that the parties were, notwithstanding the relation, 
substantially at arms' length and on an equal footing, and that 
nothing has happened which might not have happened, had 
no such relation existed. The burden of proof lies, in all 
cases, upon the party who fills the position of active con- 
fidence, to show that the transaction has been fair. If it can 
be shown to the satisfaction of the court that the other party 
had competent and disinterested or independent advice, or 
that he performed the act or entered into the transaction 
voluntarily, deliberately and advisedly, knowing its nature 
and efiect, and that his consent was not obtained by reason of 



' Tate V. WilliamsoD, L. P, 2 Ch. thorn, 1 Y. «fe C. C. C. 342 ; Van Eppa 

App. 61. '■• Van Epps, 9 Paicje (Am<r.), 241; 

" Home V. Mecres, 1 Vern. 465 ; Ay- Ahcrdccn Railway Lo. v. liluikie, 1 

hSo V. Murray, 2 Atk. 59 ; Robinson *»•. Macq. 401. 



Pett, 3 P. "Wms. 251 ; Benson v. Ilea- 



1.V2 



riLMi) riti-.siMr.i). 



tlie power tif inlhioncc to wl>ich tlu* nlation jjavc rise, the 
transact ioji will be supixtrtrd.^ A man stamlinLT in a iidiuMury 
relation, it' tlealin^ with the conlidinj; ]':irty, is bound to 
c'oniinunicato all the information he has ai'tjnired resj>ectin^ 
the I'l-njierty, the snhjeet (»t' the transaction, which it was 
material lor him to kiMw, in onicr to enahle him to judge of 
the value of the projierty.' 

The ]»rincii)les which govern the case of dealings of 
persons standing in a iiduciary relation apply to tlic case of 
persons who clothe tlienisclvcs with a character which brings 
them within the i-ange of the ]>riiiciple,'' or who take instru- 
ments, securities or moneys with notice that they have been 
obtained by a person tilling a j)osition of a iiduciary cliaracter 
from a i)erson towards whom he stands in such relation.* 

In judging of the validity of transactions between persons 
standing in a confidential relation to each other, the material 
point to be considered is, whether the person conferring a 
benefit had competent and indei)endent advice. The age or 
capacity of the person conferring the benefit, and the nature 
of the benefit, are of little importance in such cases. They 
are important only where no such confidential relation exists." 
The general princi]»le, however, as to the incapacity of a 
person who stands in a fiduciary relation to take a benefit 
from the party towards whom he stands in such a relation, 



• Oibpon f. Jcyes, 6 Vcs. 278; Giil- 
din-^H V. Giildini;**, 'i Hubs. 211 ; Naylor 
V. Winrh. 2 I.. .1. lit. f:{.'.. 7 1.. .1. « fi. f>; 
Hunter v. AtkiiiR, '.i M. A K. li:(: Ciih- 
borne «•. Uiir»linm, 2 ]irnv. 7'J ; Timuut 
r. Klworthy, 4 lU-av. •1S7 ; (Jrctnliiw v. 
Kiii)r, 10 L. J. <'li. 12'.t; Kilwiinis r. 
Mevrick. 2 lift. f.« ; \\n\-m ••. liail.y. 2 
Y.'dt C. C. «'. 2r.»; Kiiitrlil «•. Mnrjori 
banks. 3 II. A- Tw. :il.l; Hillii-.. .-. 
SouMifO, Iltl. ftlO; H(.i,'litoii r. llo;;li- 
t'ln, ir. IWv. 2H8; Allfnv «'. Allfn-v. 1 
Mwc. & (;. »9; Smith t/Kny. 7 II! k 
7ftU; Uliodc«r. liut«, L. U. fCli. Aj-p. 



2r.2 ; Tnto v. Williamson. L. R. 2 Cb. 
Apit. .^^). 
••' //.. 

* Tuto V. Williamson, L. 11. 2 Cli. Ann. 
65. 

* Aril;;lii.s8c v. I'iit, 1 Vorn. 2.18 ; Mo- 
lony I'. KiTtinn, 2 !>r. it Wnr. .'il ; Ks|M!y 
f. i.ako, !(• IIii. 2i°ii): nuriloo i'. l)nwson, 
:;i n.-av. r.tCI; Ki.ll'o V. (Jr.iji'ry, HI L. 
J. Ch. 27.') ; WvHc v. I,:iiiil)crt. \(\ Ir. 
(II. '.il'J. Coni'p. lUiodoH V. Hate, L. R. 
1 Ch. A|>p. 2rtn. 

* Uliodcs I', lioto, L. U. 1 Ch. App. 
252. 



FRAUD rRi:.sr:\n:i). 153 

admits of BOino liiiiitutiun. A incru trlllin;^' ^nll to .1 person 
stiiiidin^ in a cunlideiitial rchitioii, or u iiiltu trilliii*^ li;il)ility 
iacunvd in favor of such person, cannot stand in tliu hanie 
position as a i^nll of a man's -vvliolu pnipcrty, or a liability 
involving' it, would stand in. In such cases the c<»nrt will 
not interfere to set tlicni aside upon the mere fact of a con- 
tidcntial relation, and the absence of j)roof of competent and 
independent advice. The court requires, before it will undo 
the benefit conferred, some proof not merely of inHuence 
derived from the relation, but of mala Jides^ or of undue or 
unfair exercise of the influence.^ 

After the termination of the fiduciary relation, it is open 
to the parties to deal on the same terms as strangers ; ' but if 
a relation of confidence he once established, either some 
positive act or some complete act of abandonment must be 
shown in order to determine it. The mere fact that the 
relation is not called into existence is not sufficient of itself 
to determine it.^ If the confidential relation between the 
parties has not terminated at the commencement of the 
negotiation, the principles which govern the case of dealin"-s 
between parties standing in a fiduciary relation continue to 
operate.* Although, indeed, the confidential employment 
may have ceased, the disability a\ ill continue so long as the 
reasons on which it is founded continue to operate.' A man 
for instance, who has in the course of a fiduciary employment 
acquired some peculiar knowledge as to the property of his 
employer, cannot, after the cessation of the relation, use the 
knowledge so acquired for his own benefit, and to the 
prejudice of the other." Ihit although a person may have 

• Rhodes v. Cnte. L. R. 1 Ch. App. 212. * Tate v. Williamson, L. R. 2 Ch. App 
Sep.Beasleyr. Mnirrnth, 2 Scli.it Lef. 35. 65, 

" Tate V. Williiiinson, L. 11. 2 Cii. App. * Cnrtcr v. r.ilmor, 8 CI. <t Fin. fi57. 

65; SCO Hcadeii i-. King, 9 Ila. 5:52. ' Ih. ; Uolmau v. Lovms, 4 1), M it 

* Rhodes I'. Bate, L. R. 1 Ch. App. G. 270 
260. 

11 



154 ri:Ari> ri:!:siMi:i). 

been cmjilovrd t^r cunsulted on ((iic occjisioii, lliis will not of 
itself oonstifiif(> :i confident inl ivlaticii in n.-iKil ol' a snhse- 
qucnt trans;iction, oecin-riiii; at a luturi' and s.uiuwhat distant 
time.* 

A common instanre »>f tlio ajiplication of tlu^ ride that a 
man wlio tills a position of a lidiiciary cliaracter cannot derive 
a benclit from the ])erson towards whom he stands in sneh 
relation, is in the case of actual trustees. It is the duty of 
a trustee to use his hest exertions for the advantaj,'e of the 
cestui que trust. lie may not jdacc himself in a situation 
in which his interests Mill come into conllict with that which 
his duty retjuires him to do. Any personal henelit which 
he may ixain by availin<^ liimself of his fiduciary character 
must be ac(piired by a dereliction of duty, and will enure for 
the benefit of the trust estate.* * There is no more sacred 



* Rhodes ». Bate, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 80. A Icnso obtti'iicd by n trnstec or 

259. fxc'cutor in liis own nniiu-, even in tho 

' Ilolt f. Ilolt, 1 Cli. Cft. 190; Ex- absence of frnud. ami upon t lie refusal 

parti- Lacey, ft Ves. ri2ri ; yt>-y«;r/c. lames, of the lessor to i^niiit a new lease to th« 

8 Yes. [i'.'.i, ;M I ; D'Albiac v. D'Albiac, ciMul i/ne /;-//.v/, --lial! l>e held upon trust 

1') Yes. \'l-i ; Hamilton v. Wri^^iit, 9 CI. for tlie person entitled to the old lonsc. 

A- Fin. Ill; lirouf^hton c. lirou^xhton, 5 Keeeh v. Sandford, Sel. C'a. C'h. CI; 

I). M. «fe G. IftJ ; Yuuf,'hton y.Kohle.MJ While v. Tudor, L. C. vol. I, \>. 10. 
Bcav. 34; Crosskill v. IJower, ^2 Ikav. 



* Pamcy r. Saunders, 10 How. 5:}.^ ; :\Iitciicll v. Mooro, Hinh, GSO; 
Van Kpps r. Van Epps, I) Paige, 237 ; UrinUerhof r. Brown, 4 Johns. C'h. 
C9:{ ; Matter of Oakley, 2 Edw. Ch. 478 ; flyers r. Myers, 2 ^IcCord's Ch. 
214 ; Jaini.son r. Glascock, 21) Me. 191. 

All transactions relating to the trii>;t estate enure to the benefit of tho 
rtMiii tjuf tru»t. Freeman v. Ilarwood, 40 Me. l!)j; .Tewetl r. Miller, 10 
N. Y. 402; Ilrantly r. Key, 5 Jones' Eij. XVI ; Paige r. Naglee, G t'al. '^41 ; 
Lennox r. Notertbc, 1 Hemp. U.^l ; Spindler r. Atkinson, 8 Md. 4ii9; Hill 
c. "Wehl), 2 Gill, 10:J ; Callis r. lUdout, 7 O. & J. 1 ; Crulehliehl r. Hayiies, 
14 Ala. 49 ; Green c. Winter, 1 Joints. Ch. 27 ; Hauley r. .Mareius, 7 Johns. 
Ch. 174;.Keaton r. Cold*-, 1 Dev. Ch. 4:19; IJoyd r. Hawkins, 2 I)ev. Clu 
195; M'CIanahan r. Hendirson, 2 A. K. Marsh. UbS; Chapin c. Weed, 1 
Clarke, 464; Slade r. Van Veehtcn, 11 I'aii,'e, 21. 

A purchivHc of the tru-it properly is valid as to all persons except tho 
ecttui que tnut. Wilson r. Troup, 2 Cow. 105; Painter c. Henderson, 7 



riiAi I) rui:srMKi). l.-j.-} 

ruJc of equity than tliat a trustee! cannot m execute a trust as 



Barr, 48; McKinloy v. Irvine, 13 Ahi. 031 ; llaldwin r. Allison, 4 ;Minn.2."i ; 
Rice V. Clighorn, 20 Ind. 80. 

A triistee can not avoid hi9. purchase' when the cestui que trust is satis- 
ficd. He can only file a bill CMHiiiix upon the nxtui que trnsf to confirm or 
avoid the sale. MeClure v. Miller, Hailey's Ch. 107; Williams r. Marshall, 
4 G. et J. niO; Iliiffr. Earl, [i lud. ;J06. 

Tlio option of the rrntin que trust to follow the trust fund into a new 
investment, or to hold the trustee personally liable for a breach of the 
trust, iH-lonys to him exclusively, and it is not in the power of the trustee 
to deprive him of it by a repurchase of the trust proijerty. Oliver t. Piatt, 
3 Uow. ;};{:'.. 

A sale of the trust property to a corporation, in whieh the trustee has 
a large interest, is voidable. Koblnns r. Butler, 24 III. 387. 

Ily claiming the proceeds, the cestui que trust confirms the sale. Pierce 
V. Nesl)it, 1 Hill's Ch. 445. 

In considering the capacity of a trustee to purchase the property of 
his cestui que trust, the authorities may be regardeil under two classifica- 
tions : 1st. "Where a trustee buys or contracts with hin)self, or several 
trustees of which he is one, or a board of trustees. 2d. Where the deal- 
ing of the trustee is with a cestui fjue tj^sf, who is sui juris and competent 
to deal independently of the trustee in respect to the trust estate. The 
distinction between the two classes of cases consists in this: tliat, in the 
first, the contract is voidable absolutely at the instance of the cestui que 
trw.t^ without regard to its fairness; whilst, in the second, although the 
presumptions of law are against the contract, yet permission is given to 
the trustee to show the perfect homi Jides of the transaction, and circum- 
stances relieving it from the censure of the law. This is a distinction 
recognized generally, but not universally. Some of the cases insist, with 
great earnestness, that the goveming prinrijile ought to be, and is, the 
same in both classes. Iloftnian v. Steam Coal Co. r. Cumberland Coal & 
Iron Co. IG :\Id. 456 ; Cumljcrland Coal Co. t. Sherman, 30 Barb. 533. 

The doctrine docs not apply to the relation of i)rincipal and surety. 
Blow V. Ma^^lard, 2 Leigh, 20. 

While, in cases of pure trust, where exclusive jurisdiction is in equity, 
resort must lie had to that tribunal for relief; and sometimes, in cases of 
quasi trust, that court will grant relief where there are special circum- 
stances requiring it ; yet, where the relation is a legal relation, and it.s 
rights and duties arc defined by law. the remedies for the violation of 
such duties are ordinarily at law. ild. Fire lus. Co. r. Dalrymple, 25 Md. 
242. 



i:,0 niAi i» ri:i-.srMi:i). 

to have the least benefit fnim it Iiiiu.-tlf.' * The restraint on 
any lursiiiial hiMu-iit td thi- tnibtee is not e<»nlin('<l t<» liis 
tiealinj^s with the i'>tafr, hut extends to mmnu'ration t'«>r 
services, and j)revents liini from receiving anytliin<; l)eyond 
the j>aynient of his e.\})enses, uidess there be an exi>rfss 
stipnhition to tlic contrary.' Tlierc may be cxses in which 
the court will establish an airrcement made with a trustee 
for a certain allowance beyond the term of liis trust, but the 
court will be extremely cautious and wary in doin^]^ so. The 
court looks upon trusts as honorary, and a burden on the 
honor and conscience of the party, and nut as taken with 
mercenary motives.' f 

But there is no rule whieh incapacitates a trustee from 
dealini: with the cetifui que trust in res]»cet of the trust estate. 
A trustee for sale may purchase the trust estate, if the cedui 
qnc trust fully and clearly imderstands with whom he is deal- 
ing, and makes no objection to the transaction, and the trustee 
fairly and honestly discloses all that he knows respecting the 
property, and gives a just and fair price, and docs not seek to 



• Forbes «. Ross, 2 Cox. 110. v. D.irbv. 2S Benv. :!2ri ; Crosskill v. 

' Robinson r. Pctt, 3 V. Wnis. 210; Hnwcr. '■'••! Mi-nv. St\ ; Barrett v. Hurt- 

Moore r. Frowd, « M. .0 ('. -If,; Haiii- ley. I.. K. '1 Va\. 7.S'.t. 
bricjsje r. Blair, s Bcnv. .1X8 ; BrMiiylitun ' A\ lilli- r. Murray, 2 Atk. 59. 

V. Bri'Ughton, 5 D. M. <t G. ICO ; Harbin 



* Michotul r. r.irofl, 4 How. 503 ; Bank of Orleans r. Torrcy, 7 Ilill. 200 ; 
ConyiT r. Hinj?, 11 Barb. 350; Murray r. VandtTbilt, 30 Barl). 110; Sloo p. 
Law, « Blfttcli. 4.">y. 

r A (liflTerrnt ruli- prevail.s gcnonilly, if not nnivcr.^ally, in this country, 
litre it Ls considLTftl just ami rea.sonablc that a trustee should receive ft 
luir compcnmition for hi.s wrvices, and, in most casoH, it is gauged by n 
r( rtain jKTccntagc on the amount of the estate. But a tnntee who has 
a(tc<l fraudulently and dis-lmncstly is not entitled to the same ronjjiensa- 
tion as he who has artnl n;>ri;rlitly ; and there nmy be eases where nc;,'ii- 
gcncc and wont of rare muy amount to want of good faith. Barney r. 
Baiindcrs, 10 llov.-. r>33. 



FiiAii* rKi;srMi;i). 157 

secure snnejttifidu.sly .'iiiy a(lv;nir:iL;e lor liiiuscH",'* lint tlie 
transaction becomes iiii|teaclin1)le, if tliere is any peeret or 
uiidcrliaiHl (IcaliiiLT <'M tlic |i;iit (»t" tli(> trnstcc. liouevcr lair 
it niay be in otlier respects, tlie transact l(<ii caiinnt b(! bhj)- 
ported, if tlie ceshd quetrud (b»es not clearly an<l distinctly 
understajid tliat lie is dealinf;^ \s\\\\ tbc trustee. A trustee 
cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed to deal with 
himself on behalf of the cestui que tritst surrc])titiously and 
without hid knowledge and assent. It is immaterial that he 
may take no advanta/jjc from the bargain. It may be that the 
terms on which he attempts to deal with the trust estate are afi 
good as conld have been olttaincd from any other quarter. 
They may even be better, but so inllcxildo is iIk; rule, that no 
inquiry can be made as to the tairness or nnfairness of the trans- 
action. It is enough that the act has a tendency to interfere 

' AylifTe r. Mnrrny, 2 Atk. 69; Roynl, 12 Vos. 355; Downes r. Grnzc- 

Clnrke'r. Swnilo, 2 ed. 13t; Ei-purie bnwk, 3 Mer. 208; Knif^lit v. Marji.ri- 

Lacej', 6 Ves. 620; Fx-/iartc Janits, 8 banks, 2 Mac. tt G. 10; re M'Kcnna, 13 

Ves.*3'l8; Coles c. Trecotliick, 9 Ve-». Ir. Cli. 230; Luff /•. Lord. 11 Jur. N. S. 

240; A'j--/Jrtr/<' Eennctt. 10 Vts. 381; 50; iJover r. Buck, (6. 060 
Kandall v. Erringtun, ib. 422 ; Morse p. 



* Richardson r. Spencer, 18 B. Mon. 450; Sallce r. Chandler. 2G Mo. 
124 ; Baxter r. Coston, 1 Busbee's Eq. 2G2 ; Kennedy r. Kennedy, 2 Ala. 
571 ; Field r. Arrowsmith, 3 Humph 412; Villincs v. Norflect, 2 Dev. Ch. 
167; Marshall r. Stephens, 8 Humph. 159; Bryan v. Duncan, 11 Geo. G7. 

A trustee cannot become a purchtiser of the trust estate. He cannot 
be both vendor and vendee. He cannot represent in himself two opposite 
and conflictintT interests. Worniley v. "Wormley, 8 "Wheat. 421; Caldwell 
V. Taggart, 4 Pet. 190; Hunt v. Bass. 2 Dev. Eq. 292; Quarles v. Larey, 4 
Munf 251; De Cater t. Lee Roy de Chaumont, 3 Paige, 178; Child v. 
Brencr, 4 Paige, 309 ; Campbell r. Johnson, 1 Sandf Ch. 148 ; Johnson p. 
Bennett, 39 Barb. 237; Charles r. Dul>ose, 29 Ala. 307 ; Mason v. :M:irtin, 4 
Md. 124 ; Wasson r. English. 13 Md. 170; Armstrong v. Campbell, 3 Yerg. 
201 ; MeGinn r. ShaeiVer, 7 Watts, 412 ; Mattbeus r. Dezaud, 3 Dessau. 24 ; 
Thorp V. McCullum, 1 Gilman, 614. 

A sale by a trustee to his cestui que trust stands on the same footing aa 
a purchase by a trustee from his cestui qm trust. McCarty t. Bee, 1 
McCorda Ch. 383. 



15S 



rwAi i> ri:i;siMi;i). 



with till' duty of protcctinp^ tlic trust estate wliicli the trustee 
1ms taken upon liiniself to perforin. The policy of the rule is 
to shut the tloor against tenij)tation. It makes no matter 
uhether the transaction relates to real estate, or i)ersonalty, or 
mercantile mattei-s, for the disability arises not from the sub- 
ject matter, hut fr.mi the ohliiration under which a trustee 
lies to do his utmost for the cestui que trust}* It makes no 
diflerence in the application of the principle that the sale ^vas 
by public auction,'^ f or that the jjurchase was nuule through 
another person,':}: -or that the purchase was made from a co- 
trustee,* § or that the trustee may have purchased as agent for 
another person," j] or tliat a third person may, by previous 



• Fox V. Mncrcth. 2 Bro. C. C. 400, 
2 Cox. 320. 4 l?ro. \\ ('. 2r>S; Ex-purte 
Lnc •}•, •> Vcs. 027; Kxjxuie Jiiinos, 8 
Vi'S. M4S; Kxpiirte IJoiiiU'lt, 10 Ves. 
8'J4; U:indall v. Errini;toii, ib. 423; 
Att.-(icn. V. Karl of C'liircrnlon, 17 Vcs. 
60<>; (Jresforv v. (in-ijnrv. Coop. 201 ; 
Woodhoiise t'. Mcrclitli, I'j. A W. 222; 
Baker r. Carter. 1 Y. it C. 2.')0; (Jrov.r 
r. lliiirell. 3 Uiiss. 42S; Hailey ". Wat- 
kins, cit. (j Bliyh. 27.'i ; re Bloyo's Trust, 
1 Mae. A G. 4'.'0. ali\l. as Lewis r. Hill- 
man. 3 II. L. G"7 ; Knijjht v. Marjori- 
banks, 2 Mae. 6i Ci. 12; Ilaniiituii v. 
Wriijlit. y (1 &. Fin. Ill; lnj,'lo v. 
Rielianls, G Jur. N. S. 117S; l'oi)liaiii 
r. Kxliani, 10 Ir. Ch. 440; Aberili-eti 
Railway Co. v. lilnikie, 1 Maeq. 4fil ; 
Parkiii-'>n v. llanluiry, 2 D. J. »t S. 
45i); Uidiey v. Kidley, 34 L. J. Ch. 



403; Franks v. BoUans, 37 L. J. Ch. 
155. 

» Campbell v. Walker, li Vca. 678 ; 
Ex-pnrte James, 8 Ves. 348 ; Ex-f>arle 
Bi'iineit, 10 Vcs. 393; Sanderson v. 
Walker. 13 Vcs. 002; York BuiMin;,'8 
Co. r. M'K'enzie, 8 Bro. P. C. 42, 3 Put. 
Sr. Ap. 378 ; Bailey v. Watkins, eit. 6 
Blii^h, 275 ; l)owne3 v. (Jrazebrook. 3 
Mcr. 2n7; Gruvcr v. Iluijell, 3 Uuss. 
42S ; Lawrence t'. Galswortliy, 3 Jur. N. 
S. 104'.»; Adams v. Sworder, 2 D. J. <k 
y. 44. 

* Sanderson i-. Walker, 13 Ves. 602; 
Adams i». Sworder, 2 I). J. «k S. 44. 

* Hall I'. N..ycs, cit. 3 Vcs. 748. 3 
Bro. C. C. 4S3; Whicheoto v. Law- 
rence, 3 Vcs. 740. 

* Exparle Bennett. 10 Vea. 881, 
400; Gri'vrory v. Gref;ory, Coop. 201; 
Ex-pnrte Urylls, 2 Dea. «b Ch. 290. 



* Michoud r. Girod, 4 IIow. 50:1; Narci.ssa r. "Wathan, 2 B. .'\Ioii. 211 ; 
Rinf,';.'..!.! r. H in •:>,'. )bl, 1 H. cV J. 11; Sclnvnrt/ r. WeiuUll, Walk. Ch. 207. 

+ .Michotid r. (Jirod, I How. GO:J; Davof r. Fannin^', 2 Juiuis. Ch. 252; 
BeUamy r. Ikllaiuy, Fla. •i2. 

\ Mirhoutl r. Girod. 4 How, 503; Dnvoe r. Fanninj:. 2 Johns. Ch. 252; 
Becwin r. Hccson, 9 Harr, 27'.t ; Dorscy r. Dorsoy, :t IL tV: J. 410. 

§ Cumberland Coal Co. c. Shennan, !!0 IJurb. 5iJ:J; IJin;^';,'old r. Hin'.j- 
gold. 1 II. & J. 11. 

I IlawU-y r. Cramer, 4 Cow. 717; 2sorlh Ballo Building Association r. 
Caldwdl, 2.'; Md. 4^0. 



FRAUD ru::si;.M:;i). 



151) 



arrniiijcmcnt willi tlio trustco, liavo l)ccu tlic purolia.scT in 
trust fur the separate use and benefit of the wife of tlie 
trustee* 

"^rhe a]»i>li;';ili()ii of \]\v. piiiicijilc is, liowcxci-, liiiiitcd to 
dealings with the trust estate. In all matters unconnected 
witli the siihjoct of tlie trust, the pai'tics are fully competent 
with each other as stran<^ei"s.' 

Nor will the ])rinci})le operate alter the relatiun of trustee 
and cestui que trust is clearly dissolved, hut a man who has 
been a trustee cannot, after tlie termination of the relation, be 
allowed to avail himself for his own benefit, and to the preju- 
dice of the party for whom he has been trustee, of any infor- 
mation which he may have ac(piire(l durini^ the existence of 
the relation.^ Subject to this limitation, a man who lias acted 
in a fiduciary character may, on divesting or discharging him- 
self of the trust, purchase the property in respect of which he 
has filled a fiduciary position.** If a man cannot by an act 
of his own discharge himself of the trust so as to enable him 
to purchase, the court will, under ])articular circumstances, 
divest him of the character and enable him to purchase' If 



' Dnvoe v. Fannin;^, 2 Johns. Ch. 
(Anier.), '2.") -J. 

" Kniplit r. Marjoribanks, 2 Mac. <fe 
G. 12, 2 11. it Tw. 308. 

' Et-)»irte Lacey, 6 Vos. 027 ; Coles 
I'. TrtCDtliick. 9 Ve?. 2U); Kx-parle 
Iknnc'tt, 10 Yi-s. 301; Morse v. Royal, 
12 Vcs. 373. See liarniiton v. Wri^clit, 
9 el. <fe Finn. Ill ; llolmaii i'. Loynes, 
4 D. M. it G. 270. 

* Eje-yarte James, 8 Vcs. 337; S.in- 
dcrs..ii I'. Walker, 13 Vi-s. (Kil ; Downcs 
f. Grazi'hrook, 3 Mer. 2(MI; Kartlmlc- 
niew V. Leech, 7 Watts (Amer.), 472. 
See Stacey ''. EI|'h. 1 l\. & K. l'.»5; 
Austin I'. Cliainliers, 6 (,'l. «fc Fin. 1. 
11)0 expres.sion " shaking ofT" the char- 
acter of trustee, or " dissolvinij the re- 
lation" of trustee, used in some of the 
cases, does not seem to amount to more 



than that the transaction takes place 
witli the consent of tiie parties bene- 
ficially interested. Kx-parte James, 8 
Vcs. 352; Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. 
234, 240; Morse v. Iloyal, 12 Vcs. 373 ; 
Downcs V. (irazehrook, 3 Mer. 208; 
Cii.dmer v. Bradley, 1 J. .V "W. OS. In 
Austin V. I'haiiibers, C'l. it P'in. 1. 
where it was said that a man mii^ht,on 
sh;ikin;5 off the character of a trustee, 
jiurchasc tlie tru-;t estate, the solicitor 
WMS not employed in the sale oy his 
client, and was himself a jtulurmcnt 
creditor. A trustee cannot he allowed 
to purchase the trust estate by his re- 
tirement from the trust with that o!)- 
ject in view. Sprinij v. IVide, 12 W. 
U. 510. 

' Camiihell >•. Walker, U Ves. OSl. 
Sec Ki-pafie James, 8 \'es. 348; ban- 



* Kearney r. Taylor, 15 How. 494; Pries r. Evans, 26 Mo. 30. 



IGU ' I'Ai i» 1'k:..sim: n. 

the tnist property is taken entirely out ct' ;i mairs liniuls, and 
all his authority over it ])ut an end to hy the int('rp(»sitiun and 
act ot* law, as in the case of a sah' by execution, there is no 
reason why he should not he ahle to ]>nrcliase. Tiu' prin- 
cijdc iijion whiih a trustee is diharicil iVnia ]ninlia>iiii; the 
trust estate <loes not a]>j)ly to such a case.* The a8sij;nec ot* 
an insolvent debtor, for instance, may ])urchase the debtor's 
estate when sold by the sherilK' So also a creditor takini; out 
execution may ]>urchasc the ]>ro]>erty njton a sale by the 
sheriti? IJut a man standini; in a tiduciary character with 
respect to projierty cannot be allowed to i>urchase the prop- 
erty at a judicial sale, unless the entire responsibility of 
obtaininij the hii^hest price has been taken out of his hands.* 
If be continues under any duty in respect of the subject- 
matter of the sale, he is incapacitated from jjurehasin*^.' j\or 
will the transaction be allowed to stand, if there appears to 
have been any unfairness in his conduct with regard to tho 
sale.' 

The iiriiici})le which all'ects dealings between trustee and 
cestui que trtiM is not conlined to trustees properly so called, 
but extends to other }»ersons inve>ted with a like lidiiciary 



(lorflon r. Walker. 13 Veo. C02; Mul- Sec llftwlcy »•• Cramer, l Cow. (Anicr.). 

vany '•• I'iU"". 1 Ha. «t He. -IIS; Kx- 717. ("oin|>. Lord ('niii-liwii c. Juliii- 

jKirle JIarri>oi), Uuek, 17; Kx-p'irte Btone, ;{ Ves. IHJ, S Ves. 'J77. 

Ilajje, 4 Madti. •I'.tt; Anon. 2 Rums. 350; * Van Kpps i-. Van Kpps. ft I'ai'o'a 

Exjxirtf Morlaiul, Muiit. it M. 7t'>. Hi. (Anier ), 2:57; Jcwclt v. Miller, G 

' Trevoht V. (Jrat/, iVters" ('. C. SeUi. (Atner.), 4o2. See York iJuiKl. 

(Ariier. ), y7W; P'isk r. Sarber, 6 Watts ings I'o. v. M'Kenr.ie. ;i I'at. Sc. Ap. 

ii Ser;,'. (Amor.), 18. Seo K/pirle 8118 ; A'j--/)ar/f .Morluiul, Mont, .t .M. 70; 

Farley. '.\ Dea, and I'll. Hit; Austin v. Ex-mrtr Farley, iiDea. it Cli. 110. 

< lianil>er-«. <i ('Lit I"in. 1; IJeaden v. ' Fisk v. Sarljer, ti Wail.s »t .Sorjf. 

Kin;?, y Hn. l'.*'.'. Cornp. York Knild- (Anier.). 18. N-e J-.'x/Hirlf .Morland, 

intjH Co. V. .M'Kenzie, 3 I'ul. Sc. App. Mont. »k M. 7«; Kx-f-irh- Menn.tt. 10 

yya. Yes. U'.t.'l ; J-Sx/nirle Farley, ;; Hca. d: 

» FhU r. Sarhcr, ft WattH .t Serg. Cli. 11">. 

(Amer.), 18. Sec KijiarU Morland, 'Lord Cranstown v. JolmKtonc, S 

Mont. «k M. 70 Ve«. 182, 5 V<'«. 277; I'crcns r John 

• s>tralf«/rd v. Twynam. Jar. 418; ttun, S Siu. ib U. 41U. 
dianilMT'* r. WatcrH, :i Sim. 42; S. C. 
Wttttrn V. Groom, 11 Cl. &. Fiu. 084. 



FRAUD PREKl'MKI). 



Kil 



cliaractcr : such as executors and adiiiiiiistraiors ;' * iissi^riu-cR 
of a l)aiiknij)t ;^ roinmi.s^ioiicrs of l)ankruj)ts ami other judicial 
oflicers;^ coiiiniittccs of hmatics;* <;(i\eniors of :i charity;' 
receivers;'' directors of a i-aiiway m- ntlicr coiii]ia!iy ;' f to ar- 



' lli'll (.. ll„'l,-tt, 1 Cox, i:;i; Killick 
.. FK-xn.'y. -t liro. 0. C. Itil ; Wntsoii 
,;. Toiiin-, V( M;ulil. IT):] ; iJiikiT i'. t'lirti.T, 
1 Y. »k C. 2.')0; (Irovos v. I'crkins, fl 
Shu. 57t) ; Picki'riii^ r. I'ickcrini;, 2 
Ik-av. ;J1 ; Wcilili'il)iirii >•. Wi'iliicrburn, 
4 M. it V. 11 ; i;iirt()ii r. lIiH-;:ir.l, ;{ Dr. 
«t War. 4(>I ; AUlri'V ''. -Mllioy. 1 Mac. 
A G. 87 ; Sinfilley i'. Vark-y, \>:i Beav. 
869 ; I'riileau.x v. Loii.silalc, 1 D. J. <fe 
8. 433. 

• Kxpartr Reyiiolit-!, 5 Yes. 707 ; ex- 
pnrle lluylios, tl Yes. 017; cx-parlc 
Lacej', ill. t')2.") ; rx-ptrlc James, 8 Yes. 
337 ; ri-piirtf UciiiiLat, M Yes. 381 ; re 
Browne, 7 Ir. Ch. 274; I'ooley c Qiiil- 
ter, 2 1). tfc J. 327. See Adams >'. 
Sworder, 2 1). J. tk S. 44. Leave may 
be fiiveii by tlic court to tlu- Jissii^nee to 
l>ureliase tlie bankrupt's estate. Ez- 
jxnVf Jiinu's, S Yes. 318; rx-part' Har- 
rison, Buck. 17; cr-parte Bu.;e, 4 Madd. 
40O; Anon., 2 Uu~.. 350; ex-purte 
Scrle, 1*(J1. it Ja. is7; ex-pirlc Beau- 
raont, 1 Mont. «k A 3<i4. In one case 
nn nssiijnee was r^'inovcd in order tliat 
he miijht bid at a side of tlie bankrupt's 
estate^ Et-purtr I'eiks, 3 M. 1). it De;^. 
SS."). Tlie le.ive must ha \t\X'\ iou^ly ob- 
tained. Beforr tiie court will entertain 
any such application on the part of the 
assignee, he must tirst obtain tiie con- 



Hent ( f the creditors, at a mcc-liii^j 
called for (lij pn>':>o3o of eiiablini^ them 
to assent to or dif.-ent f-.om the proposed 
purchase. Kx-jxnte Molinen.\, 4 D. it 
('. 4()1 ; AuoH., 2 Ku's. .'i.'/O; and even 
then the court will not make; the order, 
except under very sjiecial circumstances. 
L'x-parte IIod:^son, 1 <M. it J. 14; cx- 
jtfirff Towne, 4 I), it C. .'"illi. In a case 
where the court refused to allow an as- 
8i;^nec to bid, he was allowed to name 
the price he would irlve, if the property 
was not sold by aucion, ami afterwards 
to buy at that price. A'x-/iafte Holy- 
man, 8 Jur. 1 i''>. If a purciiase by an 
assi^^nee be fou id beneticial. it may be 
C(jiitirme 1 by the court. Ez-parie Gore, 
6 Jur. 1 .18, 7 Jur. 136. 

' J'.i ,,arte James, 8 Yes. 338; rr- 
pa7-tc liennett, 10 Yes. 381. See Camp- 
oell I'. I'cnnsvlvania Life Insurance Co.. 
2 Whart. (Amer.) r>:i. 

* Wriirht V. Proud, 13 Yes. 130. 

• Att-Gen. v. Lord Clarendon, 17 
Yes. 500. 

" Alven J'. Bond, 1 Fl. it Kel. 190; 
Eyre i: McDonnell, 15 Ir. Ch. 534 ; Bod- 
diniftoii r. L:in:if()r<l, ih. 558. 

'Benson r. lleathorn, 1 Y it. C. C. 
C. 32»i; York and >'oriii .Midland itail- 
way Co. I'. Hudson, 10 Beav. 163 ; Great 
Luxembourg Kailway Co. v. Magniiy, 



* Diivoe r. Fanning, 2 Johns. Ch. 252 ; Mulford v. Minds, 3 Stock. 16 ; 
Mcanor r. Hamilton, 27 Penn. Vol ; Swayze c. Burk, 12 Pet. 11 ; Cannon r. 
Jenkins, 1 Dev. Ch. 122. 

t Hofl'man Steam Coul Co. v. Ciimberiand Coal Jc Iron Co., IG Md. 4.16; 
Cumberland Coal & Iron Co. r. Sherman, oO Barb. o.j3 ; Speuce v. Wbit- 
taker, 3 Port. 297. 

K prochciii ami, Collins r. Smith, 1 Head, 251. 

A pledgee, Md. Fire Ins. Co. v. Dalrymple, 25 Md. 242 ; Baltimore Mar. 
Ins. Co. V. Dalrymple, 25 ild. 302. 

A person who enters under a contract to purchase, Ilallet r. Collins, 10 
How. 174. 

But not to a sale to the shcriiT, Mark r. Lawrence, 5 H. it J. Gl ; Isaac 
c. Clark, 2 Gill, 1. 



UV2 



i-UAi 1) rui:su.Mi:i). 



l)itrat»M*s ;' t.> a tiuMiiUi'i' dt" Ji c'urjH)nitu»ii takini; a lease of tbo 
iMrporate i>n»porty,' and many other eases.' The disability 
extends in jjjeneral to all persuns who hein*; employed or con- 
eerned in the allairs of another ac<inire a kin»\\ ledi^o of liis 
])rojHrtv.* Partners in business of an assignee in bankrupt ey 
arc equally disqualified from pureba>ing as the assi-^nee him- 
self.' 

The prinfij)lo does not, however, apply to the ease of a 
mort'^af^ee dealing with the mort::^a;^or,'' nor to tlio c;iso of a 
puisne morti^ai^eu biiyini,' the mort_i:aLred pr(»[)erty from a i)rior 
mortgagee under the exercise of his power of sale;' nor to 
the case of a tenant for life purchasing from trustees for ealo 
under a power to be exercised with his consent;^ nor to the 
ease of a tenant for life or mr)rtgagor with power to sell or lease 
gelling or leasing to a trustee for himself;^ nor tl.os the prin- 
cijile api»lv to the case of merely nominal trustees, such as 
trustees who have disclaimed," or trustees to preserve contingent 
remainders.*' 

If the tenant of charity lands happens to be a trustee, that 
is a circumstance to excite suspicion, if the land be of an inad- 
equate value. At the same time it must be remembered that 
the case of a charity estate is one in which of all others the 
securitv of the rent is the lirst object to be regarded. In such 



'jn llcav. n87; Onskpll v. Chnmhcro, 20 
r.<nv. .'5(i(>; AlH'nli'cn Itaihvay <'<>. i'. 
l;lail;ii-. 1 .Mn<<i. -Jill; M-/»<«r/<'lIill, ;V2 
J,. .1. (li. l.'»l ; S|iackuiau'd Cuao, o4 L. 
.l.'cii. :iJl. 

' lUiiuierlin-Hflclt » Dny, 2 IJa. cb IJc, 

* Atl.-flon. V. rorporotiun of Cashcl, 
3 I)r. d: Wur. '.".tl. 

• Soo ex-imrtr Morpon, 12 V<>h. »> ; 
«; rover r. Hii;;"'!!. :i Kw-*. ••'-"<; <;r(<n. 
Inw »'. llii:;<-ll, •"' 15<'av. ■!'.»; Hc.ulcii «. 
Kiii'^', IIii. 41*''; I'iini'i r. l'ri»|iri"t<ir« 
nffirand Juiiflion Kuilwny «'o.. :i J I. \. 
"I'.i'i; l)<-nl<iii r. Iionn'T, 211 Il«av. 2^5; 
rt Uonsyoeit KoUitu, \'i Ir. Ch. 4U. 



• Suj. V. ct P. 6S7, 11th c<l. mprn. p. 
151. 

• Ki/Hutc niirnrll. 7 .lur. llrt. 

" Kiii:;lit V. .Maijorihank-i. 2 Mac. Jt G. 
10. 2 11. it Tw. :;>)!< ; Dulisoii I'. Lnnil. 8 
I la. 220; but comp. Ilirk("< •■. Ciioko, -1 
I>o\v. It'i; l)()\vncrt (•. (irazi'hrook, !) 
Mer. 200; iv Dloye'a Trii-t, 1 Mac. A 
<J. UM'; Kohort-tDii f. Norris, 1 (Jiff. 
421 ; Ford i-. Old.-n, L U. 'A Kij. 101. 

' Sliaw I', nuiiiiy. 2 1) .1. A S. 468 ; 
Kirkwooil ('. 'rii<imp''i>ti, ih, t\];i. 

• ll.iwi.nl r. Diicati.'. T. .t K. 81. 

• H.vaii r. Hal.u'.,()J, 1 .1. & H. 222. 
••.suicey V. KIpii. 1 M. A K. 195; 

ClimiiliiT^ V. Wators, ',1 Sim. 42. 

•• J'arki-8 I'. Wliit*;, 11 Vc8. 209, 22ft. 



1'1:AII) I'KKSUMED. Ki.'J 

cases, therefore, tlic iiiii(le(|ii:icy of the rent reserved is less a 
bailee of fniud tluiii it would he in almost any other case.* 

Considerations of a biniilar character aj)j)ly to tlie ease of 
transactions ])ct\veen ])ersons standing to eacli other in tin; ivhi- 
tioii of solicitor and client.'* It is the duty of a solicitor to 
protect the interests of his client. The client is entitled to tho 
full benelit of the best exertions of the solicitor. A solicitor 
may not brini,^ his own personal iiitere-t in any way into con- 
flict with that which his duty ivijuin-s him to do,^f or make a 
gain for himself in any manner whatever at the expense of his 
client in respect of the subject of any transactions, connected 
with or arising out of the relation of solicitor and client, beyond 
the amount of just and f\iir professional remuneration to -which 
he is entitled.-*:}: A solicitor may not even enter into an agree- 

• J?!;-/)^/-/^ Skinner, 2 Mor. 457. * Wood v. Downo.s. 18 Ve><. 12<>; 

'See Walmsluy 1-. Bootli. 2 Atk. 29; Rliodus v. Ik-auvuir, G TA'v^h, I'j:,; 

Newman v. I'nvup. 2 Vea. Jr. 201; Ciiixinjiion v. Rii^hy. Taml. 421, 9 L.J. 

Rhodes V. Beauvoir. Rligli, 195; Cas- Ch. X. 8. 211 ; Lvddon i-. JIoss, 4 D. <fe 

borne r. Barsham, 2 Bi-av."7t) ; Iloluian J. lot; Proctor v. llobinson, 35 Beav. 

V. Loynos, 4 1). M. & (J. 270. 3:i5 ; Tvrrell v. Bank of London, 10 II. 

' ' Lawless v. ilaiisfiuld. 1 Dr. <k War. k 20, 44. 
557, (>:h. 



* Dc Kor^e V. Fay, 3 Edw. Ch. 3G9 ; s. c. 4 Edw. Ch. 40 ; Gray r. Em- 
mons, 7 Mich. 533. 

t VaU-ntine r. Stuart, 15 Cal. 387; Cox v. Sullivan, 7 Geo. 144 ; IIooi)C3 
V. Burnc-tt, 2G Mi^s. 428. 

X Clcavingcr r. Keimar, 4 W. & S. 48G ; Brock v. Barnos 40 Bar]). 521 ; 
Giddings v. Eastman, 5 Paige, Stil ; Barry v. Whitney, 3 Sandf. GOG. 

An attorney is bound to disclose to his client every adverse retainer, 
and even every prior retainer, which may aflfcct the discretion of the latter. 
Williams v. Reed, 3 ^Mason, 455. 

An attorney can not abandon his cliont. and go over to the adverse 
party. Valentine v. Steward, 15 Cal. 387; "Wilson v. State, IG Ind. 302; 
Price V. Grand Rapids & Ind. R. R. Co. 18 Ind. 137. 

The mere fact that he has o!jtaini'd knowledge of the matters con- 
nected with the suit in the course of other business does not prevent him 
from acting adversely to his former client. Price r. Grand Rai)i.ls & Ind. 
R. R. Co. 18 Ind. 137. 

An attorney may make the measure of his compensation a part of the 
contract by which he agrees to pe-form tlic serviCLS needed, and such a 



nil 11:AI l> I'Ul.SlMl.l). 

mcnt with a man to be \\h polioiti.r in a particular transaction 
upon tlio tonus (.f «rottin«,' a <;reati'r licnrtit than he \v(.uKl ob- 
tain by tlie ('<ists whii'li lie is cntitk-il to char^^o ai-ccrdini; to 
the rules of law.' If. in<lee«l, a solicitor be a trustee, he is not 
entitled to chari^'e for professional services in respect of the 
trust estate.* 

A solicitor is not under any incapacity to ])urchase from or 
sell to a client. A solicitor may deal with a client or purchase 
a client's proi>erty even duriiii; the continuance of the relation, 
but the biirtluMi of pnx.f lies on him to show that the transac- 
tion has been perfectly fair.^'-^ A j.rudent man woidd not deal 
with his client without the intervention of another solicitor, 
but there is no rule that a solicitor may not take such a 
course.* He must, however, bo prepared to show that he gave 
his client the same protection as he would have given him, if 

•Strnn-e r. -Rronnnn. 15 L. J. Ch. ' Stancs v. rnrker. 9 Bcav. 385; 

88fl • IMnc^- I'. I5.'iittie, 32 L.J. Cli. 7=54 ; To.1.1 v. Wilson, ib. 4S(5. 
Bce ilc Whitconibe. 8 Hcnv. 140 ; comp. ' Sxpn,, p. IM. . , ^ ^, ^ , 

Lvildori r Moss, t 1>. A J. Ml; G.illo- * (-'utts -•. Sulinon. '21 L. J. Ch. 7.)0, 

n-av '• C'orponition of Loiulon. L. 11. 4 per Lord St. Loonnrds ; Jones i-. Price. 

Eq! it'i; 8<e liirtlur a? to account--* be- '20 L. T. 40 ; see W alt v. Grove, 2 Sch. 

twi-en Koli<itor ami clicut, A'ukcd v. «t Lcf. M'6. 
Warlon, 5 lieav. 448. 



contract will bo as bindinir upon tl»c client as any one into wliinh he can 
enter. Lejratt v. SuUee, 3 Port. 11"); Wallis r. Loubat, 10 Pai^'c, 352 ; 
Balsdbaujli v. Fraser, 19 Penn. 95; Mills v. Mills, 20 Ct. 213. Contra, «r- 
j^trU Plitt, 2 Wallace, Jr. 453. 

A juil^'inint by confession to an iittorncy will only stand as security for 
what is actually due. Starr t. Vandcr>lieyden, 9 Johns. 253. 

A security taken durinj; the iMiulcncy of a suit can not be enforced for 
«inythin<s' beyond the sum actually due. Mott r. lIarrin«:ton, 12 Vt. 199. 

An attorney who holds a judgment for himself and a jud;,'ment for his 
client against a common del>tor, and collects his own by the use of dili- 
gence, beyond tlu- obli^'ations of his trust can not be compelled to pay the 
money to his client. C'o.x r. Sullivan, 7 (ieo. 14 I. 

The doctrine applies to suits before magi-strates as well as in court. 
IlulTalow r. IJulTalow. 2 Dev. i\: Hat. K<i. 241. 

» Evans r. KUis, 5 Dcnio, C40; .Mills r. Ervin, 1 McCord's Ch. 521 ; Mat- 
ter of Po.st, 3Etlw. Ch. 309. 



FKAl I) I'KI'Sl .Mi;i). 



105 



dealing with a Htraiii^or, and must satisfy tlio court that lu; has 
taken no advanta^^u ol" liis ])rot'cssional ])obition, hut lia.s duly 
and li<-»ni'stly advistMl his clii-nt as an in<h']i( inh-nt ami di,>intc'r- 
ested advistT woiilil have done, and has lii-ou;4'ht to his knowl- 
edge evcrythini^ which lie himself knew neeessaiy to enahlo 
liim to form a judi^mont in the matter, and he must in ])articu- 
lar he able to show that a just and fair price lias been ^iven.^* 
lie Bhould, indeed, he pi'epared to show Ikjw the contract was 
entered into, wlio made tlic first offer, and what were the cir- 
cumstances attending the transaction.'^ The possibility of a 
specuhitive or contingent advantage does not fall within those 
communications which a solicitor is bound to disclose to his 
client, if the transaction has been in other respects fair, and 
the point ^vas as much open to the observation of the one 
party as the other.* If a solicitor be employed as an agent for 
sale or purchase, he may not purchase from or sell to himself 
surreptitiously without the knowledge or consent of his client.* 



' Gibson v. Jcycs. Ves. 277 ; Monf> 
esquicu v. Sandys, 18 Ves. liO'i; Cane 
V. Lord Allen, 2 Dow. 2'.)1 ; Morgan r. 
Lewos, 4 Dow. 2".t, 47 ; Molony v. 
L'Estianno. Beat. 4(JG ; Cliaminon v. 
Hi^by.Tainl. 421. 9 L. J. Ch. N. S 211 ; 
UppiiiRton I'. Bullen, 2 Dr. <fe War. 
IMS; Edwards v. Meyrick, 2 Ha. CO; 
lliu;gi»s i: Joyce, 2 J. it. L. 282 ; Spin- 
cer V. Tophnni, 22 Beav. 573 ; lloliiiaii 
V. Loyiics. 4 D. M. <t G. 270; Hesse i'. 
Briaiit, 6 D. -M. it G. 623; Savery v. 
King, 5 H. L. 027 ; Torason v. Judije, 3 
Drew. 3(Ki ; Barnard v. Hunter, 2 Jur. 
N. S. 1213; Kni-^lit c. Bowver. 2 D. it 
J. 421, 44.-); Cre-sley v. Mouslev. 4 D. 
<t J. 78, 3 D. F. <fe J. 433 ; Lyddon v. 
Moss, 4 D. «fe J. 104; Morgan ti. llig 



gins, 1 Giflf. 270; Crowdy v. Day, if> 
31t5; IV-ar-on v. Benson, 28 Beav. 5it'.i ; 
Marquis of Clanricarde v. Heiining, 3it 
Beav. 17.-); Beale v. Billing, 13 Ir. Cli. 
2.')!); Gibljs )'. Daniel, 4 GitF. 1 ; Adams 
V. Sworder, 2 D. J. it S. 44 ; Rhodes v. 
Bate, L. K. 1 Ch. Ap. 252. 

"Jones V. Price, 20 L. T. 49; seo 
Rhodes v. Bate, L. R. 1 Ch. Ap. 252; 
see also Moore v, Prance, 9 Ha. 2'.ty, 
where a deotl was set aside though the 
solicitor derived no benefit from it. 

* Edwards v. Meyrick, 2 II. GO ; see 
Montesquieu v. Sandys, 18 Ves. 302; 
RamsboUom v. Parker, 6 Madd. 6 ; 
Holnian v. Loynes, 4 D. M. <fe G. 270; 
Wentwortii v. Lloyd, 32 lieav. 4o7. 

* £x-paite James, 8 Ves. 352 ; Ez- 



♦Mills T. Ervin, 1 McCorcl's Ch. 524; Bibb r. Smith, 1 Dana, 582; 
Downing r. :Major, 2 Dana, 228 ; Rose r. :Mynatt, 7 Yerg. 30 ; Phelps r. 
Overton, 4 Ilayw. 292; Lecutt r. S:ilkc 3 Port. 115; Marshall r. Joy, 17 
Vt. 54G ; Unwell v. Kansom, 11 Paige, 538 ; Smith r. Thompson, 7 B. Mou. 
105 : Lewis c. A. J . 4 Edw. Ch. 599. 



KAj 



FKAi'i) i*ui:srMi:D. 



If the pale l»e under a ilocreo of the court, a solicitor employed in 
the cause, who wishes to ])urchase, nhould first obtain leave of 
the court.' A solicitor employed in the sale of an estate 
should not bid for the estate th<»ui:h it may be merely for the 
pm-pose of prevcntiui^ it ^oini^ at an uii<K'rv;ilii(>, unless he first 
obtain the leave of the court to do so. If he do so without the 
leave of the court and there is no hi;rher bidder, he may, if the 
court thinks proper, be held to the purchase.' 

The rule that a solicitor who deals with a client is l)Ound 
to prove the fairness of the transaction apjdies with ]>eculiar 
force where the client is j)laced at a disadvantage from his 
being indebted to the solicitor, and gives him a security for 
the debt.^ If, however, the court is satisfied that the transac- 
tion has been on the whole fair and reasonable, and that no un- 
due advantage has been taken, it will be 8U]>porte(l, although 
there may have been some irregularities attending it.* A 
solicitor who advances money to or has dealings with a client 
must be able to prove the advance of the money by* some 
other evidence than the instrument creating the security.' A 



parte Bennett. 10 Ves. 381 ; Cnne v. 
Lord Allen. 2 TJow. 294; Uh.nk.s t>. 
Bcauvoir, 6 Bli;;Ii, !'.».'•; Sidnev v. 
Unn^fCT, 12 Sim. IIH; Blovt's Trust. 1 
Moc.A G. 4S«; Lewis i: Hillinnn, :i 11. 
ii L. t'.o7; Tyrrell r. liunk of London, 
10 H. L. 20,*4l; Aduius v. Sworder, 2 
D. J. tt S. 44. 

• .Sidney v. llanpcr, 12 Sim. 118. 

• Neltliorpc v. runny riiiin, 14 Ves. 
617. 

' Troof p. Hinoi., ca. t. Tidb. ll.'i; 
WahnHJey ". Iloolii, 2 Atk. 29; Drnper'H 
Co. r. I»nvi«, ib. 29.'>; Ward i'. Ilartpole, 
cit. 8 BU"1>, 470; Newman v. I'nyne. 2 
Vc9. Jr. 200; C<.ok<> v. Selree. l"V. <k 
B. 120; l>aly v. Kelly. 4 Dow. 417. 
4:10; CaHborni; v. Bariliaiii, 2 Hear. 7i>; 
('hnmpion v. Ui;;l»v, Tand. 421. 9 I,. .1. 
Ch. N. S. 211; Bellamy v. Sabine. 2 I'll. 
42.'»; Lawle«H I'. MniiHlicId, 1 Dr. tV War. 
6.17 ; Ui>[)iiiUlon v. Bidl.n. 2 Dr. «t War. 
180; Ldwarda v. Meyrick, 2 Ho. CU ; 



Slmw V. Xcnle. 20 Beav. 157; Coleman 
I'. Mellersli. 2 Mac. it (J. ;{09 ; llolman 
t'. Loynes, 4 I). JI. d- (}. 27i>; Lyddon 
V. Moss, 28 Beav. 598 ; see .Jones v. 
Thomas. 2 Y. »t C. 498; Morjjan v. 
IIitr'.;ins. 1 GitF. 270; Re Foster, 2 1>. F. 
it J. 110; He I'uirli. 1 D. J. tt S. «7S. 

*.Iones v. Koberts. <i Beav. 419; Bln- 
prave i: Unitli, 8 D. M. it (i. CrJl ; seo 
("ooko V. Sitree. 1 V. it B. 12(1; I'len- 
derleatli I-. Frnzer, .*} V. it B. 174 ; Law- 
less V. Man,sfiild, 1 Dr. it War. 557 ; 
Slodmnn r. Collett. 17 Heav. C.iKS; Mo-fis 
I'. Bainbriir'.r<'. •> D. M. «t G. 292; see 
Clie.-lvn I'. Dalby, 2 Y. it C. 17">; comp. 
Lyddon >: .Mo.-<s. 4 D. it. .1. KM. 

* -Morijan r. Iawcs. 4 Dow. 4<i; Mor- 
(jan v. KvauM. H (1. it Fin. 19.'. ; Lawless 
V. .MannlieM. 1 Dr. «t War. 557; Grcs- 
ley e. Monsley. ;j D. F. it J. 4.'{3; see 
Junes I'. Tliotiia'". 2 Y. it C 498; ijlaio- 
ton V. Cttrrou Co. 2 1 Beav. aoi 



FKAT'D PRr.si::siED. 107 

BoUc'itor cannot, under cany circuniPtnnccs, take Rccurity from 
his client for future costs,* or f^r moneys to be advanced 
for the purposes of a cause ;" l)ut llie security pven ]>y a client 
to his solicitor for past costs or I'ur moneys actually due will he 
supported if hond^p'dc} 

The statement of an untrue consideration in a deed (;f jjur- 
chaso or sale between attorney and client is fatal to the deed. 
The court will never support a deed where an attorney is pur- 
chaser and the consideration is untruly stated.* 

The rule which throws upon a solicitor dealing: with his 
client the burthen of proving the fairness of the transaction is 
not confined to cases where the solicitor is actually employed 
at the time, but may extend to cases where a solicitor lias in 
the course of his employment on a previous occasion acquired 
or had the means of acquiring any peculiar knowledge as to 
the property.'' - As a general rule, however, it no longer ap- 



' Jones I'. Tripp, Jac. 322 ; WiUiama * Uppin^ton v. Bullen, 2 Dr. <fe War. 

t>. rin:;?ott, ib. 5'.»8 ; Bootli v. Creswicke, 181 ; see liolman v. Loynes, 4 L). M. «t 

13 L.J. CI). 217; Cok-man r. Mellersh, G. 27o. 

2 .Mac. <fc G. 301) ; see I'itclier v. Kigby, ' liolman v. Lovncs, 4 D. M. <fe G. 

9 I'ri. 79. ■ 270; Gibbs v. Daniel, 4 Giflt. 1 ; see 

' Uppington i'. Bullen, 2 Dr. tfe War. Carter v. rulmer, 8 CL Jb Pin. 667 

184. 707. 

'Cheslyn v. Dalb}^ 2 Y. & C. 170; 
Edwards "r. Meyrick, 2 Ua. GO. 



* Galbraith v. Elder, 8 Watts, 81; Rcid v. Stanley, G W. & S. 326; 
nockenburg r. Carlisle, 5 W. & S. 348. 

As the necessities of litigation compel confidence on one side, the 
policy of the law requires fidelity on the other. The policy which enjoins 
good faith requires that it should never be violated. The reas^ons for re- 
quiring it, all demand that it should be pcq)etual. Occasions may arise 
•when an upright counsellor may feci himself bound to withdraw from his 
client's cause, but no circumstances whatever can justify him in betraying 
the trust reposed under the highest obligation of professional Louor. 
Where fidelity is required, the law prohibits everything which presents a 
temptation to betray the trust. The orison which deprecates temptation 
is the oflspring of infinite wisdom, and the rule of law in accordance with 
it, rests upon the most substantial foundations. The purchase by an at- 



KiS ruAi I) i'Ui;srMi:D. 

plies after there Ims been an entire eess^tion of the relation ;* 
nor will it ai>i»ly in cases wlirre the transaction is entirely un- 
connected with the duty of the attorney.'* Nor will it ajiply 
with the panic force wljere the relation liiuiiuh not terminated 
has heen looseiu d and the intlnenco consequent on the relation 
which i\»nnerly existed between the parties is not 8ubsistin«; in 
its full and jK-rfect force.' The solicitor of a. plaintilf out of 
M-hose haiuls the property is entirely taken by act of law, as 
upon a ^^ale by execution, is not debarred iVoni i)ureliasing the 
property in I'xeeution. Neither the defendant in the execu- 
tion nor a third ])crson can object to the validity of the trans- 
action.'*t r.ut as between him and his client, the transaction 

' Gibson v. Jevca. C Vcs. 277 ; Wood * Sco Jones v. Thomas. 2 Y. A. C. 

r. Downcs. IS Vus. 120; MuntfsqHicu 510. 

.■. Sjiiulys. if>. :U3; Cane r. Lord Allen, ' Moss v. Bainbrigse, (> D. 51. «k G. 

2 I)ow."2s9 : M<>.«!' f. Bainbriii^e. i\ D. 292. 

M A G. 292 ; see Dent t-. Bennett, 1 M. * Howell v. Baker. 4 John.s. Ch. 

AC 2f,9, 277; Carter v. Palmer. 8 (1. (Amer.). 121; Hawley »'. Cramer. 4 

A Fin. (j.^7 ; Blagruve v. Kuuth, 8 I>. M. Cow. ( Anier.). 717 : see Austin v. Cliam- 

tt G. 020. tiers, CI. & Fin. 1, giijjiu, p. 159. 



tomey of an interest in the thinj^ in controvcry in opposition to the title 
of his client, is forbidden because it places him under temptation to be 
unfaithful to his trust. Such a i)urcliase. tlierefore, enures to the benefit 
of liis client. Where the confidence has relation to the title to land, the 
lidelity of the coun.sel must necessarily follow the title of his client wher- 
ever it noes. Any other rule wouUi defeat the object of the trust by de- 
strovinj; the market value of the title. If the client's vendee, and even his 
orphan children may be ruiiie<l by means of violating the trust repo^^ed by 
their vendor or ancestor, and such breaclies of trust are sanctioned by the 
courts, all land titles would b;; in jeopardy, the bar would cease to en- 
joy the confidence of the people and the courts of justice, in.stead of being 
the bulwarks of public and private security, would become the most in- 
tolerable engines of disturbance and oppression. Henry r. Raiman, 21 

I'enn. J154. 

An attorney may buy other jmiperty in good faith, even though it ad- 
join.s the projierty ownetl by his client. Smith r. Hrolherline, 02 Pcim. 

401. 

• Wendell r. Van Henssler, 1 Johns. Ch. iitl. 

t I>each r. Fowler, 22 Ark. 11:1. 

In order to relieve an attoriuy from the oiiligalion to which the pre- 



FRAi 1) i'Ki:sr.Mi:i). 109 

is not valid, if tho sum given hj liiiii is inBufliciciit to Fntisfy 
the debt, unless the client assents to the j)urclias(;. If, how- 
ever, the ]»iircliase-nione_y is suflicient to pay tin; (lel)t of the 
client, the latter cannot ol)ject to the transaction.'- 

The rule which throws upon a solicitcjr dealini^ with his 
client the burthen of proving the fairness of the transaction, 
applies to the case of voluntary agreements, and not to a case 
where the solicitor is in the liostile attitude of an urgent and 
pressing creditor.'^ Xor does the rule apply, where the trans- 
action is totally disconnected Avith the relation and ccjucerns, 
objects, and things not embraced in, or affected by, or dependent 



' Hawlcy v. Cramer, 4 Cow. (Amer.), 13 ; Pcnrson v. Benson, 28 Beav. 599; 
717, see Mo93 V. Bainbrigge, G D. M. <k G. 

* Johnson v. Fesenmeyer, 3 D. <t J. 292. 



sumption of law pivcs rise, it must appear afHrmalivcly that, before the 
transaction or dealing took place, the relation was completely at an end 
so that no influence could rationally be supposed any longer to exist. 
Lewis V. A. J. 4 Edw. Ch. 599. 

* Case r. Carroll, So N Y. 385 ; Moore v. Bracken, 27 111. 23 ; Howell r. 
Baker, 4 Johns. Ch. 118 ; Lcisinring v. Black, 5 Watts, ;i03; Wade v. Pette- 
bonc, 11 Ohio, ooT ; Smith v. Thompson, 7 B. Mon. 305 ; Stockton c. Ford, 
11 How. 232. 

If there are two plaintiffs in an executron, an attorney can not purchass 
the property levied upon for the benefit of one without the consent of tlie 
other for less than the whole sum due on the judgments. Leisinring r. 
Black, 5 Watts, 303; Ilawiey v. Cramer, 4 Cow. 717; Webb v. White, 18 
Tex. 572. 

A purchase alone does not make an attorney a trustee. lie is a trustee 
only at the instance of his principal. Downey v. Garrard, 12 Ilarris, 52 ; 
6. c. 3 Grant, G4. 

An attoniey is bound to perfect fairness, and can not take advantage 
of untoward circumstances to force a sale to the ruin of a del)tor, and to 
his own profit. Byera v. Surget, 19 IIow. 303 ; 8. c. 1 Hemp. 715. 

The rule docs not apply between the attorney and grantees of tenants 
in common with his client. Cowan v. Barrett. 18 ilo. 257. 

An attorney for the defendant may purchase property sold under an 
execution. Devinney v. Norris, 8 Watts, 314; Cleavinger o. Rcimar, 3 W. 
& S. 483. 

12 



170 FHAfD iMM:srMi:n. 

«l>oii t]i:it n-l.ition.' 'I'lio fact that tlu' i)nr('liaf"i>r nifiv bo a 
eolieitor, and that tho vendor had no lo^al adviser, tlieru havini; 
been no ]»revions rehition of solieitor and client hetween them, 
does nitt hrinij^ the eajjo within the ordinary rule vt' tlie eourt 
in such cases.' 

The iMile with roirard to ^'itts by a cliiiif to liis solicitor is 
mneh stricter than the rule with regard to other dealinirs 
between them. (Jilts from a client to a solicitor durin<^ the 
existence of the rehition a]ipcar, upon the balance of author- 
ities, to be altsolutely invalid uj)on irrounds of ])ublie policy ; 
nor can a i^ift by a client to a solicitor, after the cessation of 
tlie relation, be supjiorted, unless the intiu(!nce arising from 
the relation may be rationally supposed to iiave ceased also.^ * 
There is no difference in principle between a i,'ift to a man's 
wife and a irit't ininuMliately to himself, if the ^ift to the wife 
be affecte<l by undue means on the ])art of the husband.* The 
rule in resj)ect to benefits conferred by Mill is dilferent. A 
solicitor may take a benefit under the will of a client, although 
he may himself have prepared it, if no undue intluence was 

• Montesquieu »'. Snn.lys. 18 Vi'.«. .313; 470; Walsli v. StuiKlcrt, 2 Con. tt L. 
Jones V. Thomns, 2 Y. \t V. -IttS; Ed- 423; Tonison »•. .lu(l;:c. 3 Drew. 3i'ti ; 
wards v. Meyrick, 2 Ilii. dO, (iS. lloltniui v. Loyiies, 4 1). M. it (J. 270, 

'Edwards v. Willmms, 11 W. R. 2^3; J:, Holmes's Estite, 3 GilF. 337 ; 

661. (;ibb.s f. Daniel. 4 (JilF. 1; O'Hrion v. 

• Welles »'. Middleton, 1 Cox, 112, 4 Ix-wis, 4 fJiff. 221 ; but f^ee Oldhiini v. 
Bro. 1'. C. 24.'i : NewniiiH v. ravTie. 2 llimd, 2 N'es. 261*; Harris v. Trenien- 
Vea. .Ir. 20<i; Wriijlit v. Troiid 13 Vea. lieere, l.'> Yes, 34 ; Ifiuiter r. Atkins, 2 
I37,;»«"r l.ord Eldnii ; Wood r. D.iwnes, M. d K. 113; Walker v. Smith, 2« 
18 Yes. 120; Uod.lard r. ('Ilrli^le, ".• I'ri. lioav. 3'.'4. 

1C9; Ward v. llurtpole, cit, 3 Bligii, * (Joddurd f. Curli.'sle, '.» IVL 169. 



• The presumption is against the propriety of gifts, but it is not in- 
vincible. Ncsliit r. Lockman, VA N. Y. lOT; Hrock r. Harncs, 40 Barb. 
521. 

The moment that it is a-seertained tliat the rehition is finally clo.sed, 
gratitude may be munilicint, or even prodigal. But it must 1k' clearly 
Keen that the bounty uprings from unfeltered gratitude, not from pre- 
vious entan;,'hnunlH ; that it i.s a free-will olTering for dillirultiea over- 
come, not the fulfillment f)f a vnw rxtorted in peril. Uerrieu r. McLane, 1 
Ilofl'. Ol. 12; Leg.ilt r. Salle, :! Tori. llo. 



FRAi I) ri;i:sr.Mi:i). 171 

exerted l»y liiin over the tentatdr,' iiiid llic will was ni»t ex "- 
cuted under any mistake or iiiisa)>|>reliension cauHed by Ijiiii- 
eelf." Vtut a solicitor cannot Uc allowcil to take any benelit 
fi-oni liis own iirorc>>ioii;il ii!;iior;iiicc. A solicitor is Itonnd to 
have lull i)roiessional knowledj^as and to i;ive the intbrniation 
to his elient. If a solicitor is employed to })rei)are u deed, or 
to make a will, the law imputes to liim a knowledi^e of all the 
legal conse(piences to result therefrom, and i-cfjuii'cs that lie 
Bhould distinctly and clearly point out to his elient all those 
consequences from which a benefit may arise to himself from 
the instrument so prepared. If he fail to do so, he cannot, i..^ 
against his client or any one claiming under him, derive any 
benefit under the instrument.^ 

The principles which apply in the case of dealings between 
solicitor and client, are also applicalde to the case of a counsel 
employed by a man as his confidential adviser;* to the case of 
a man who has constituted himself the legal a<lvisL'r of an- 
other,' or has offered him legal advice in the matter;® and to 
the case of the clerk of a solicitor who has acquired the con- 
fidence of a client of his master.'* In Parnell r. Tyler,^ 
where, on a sale by a mortgagee, the purchaser had employed 
a clerk of the solicitor of the mortgagee to bid for him, the 
transaction was set aside. 

» Wnlkcr v. Smith, 29 Ecav. 304. JlTabe v. Ilussey, 2 Dow it C\. 440, 5 

•Ilindson v. \VeatlicrilI. 5 I). M. cfe lili-j^li's X. S. 715; Carter v. Palmer. H 

G 301 • see Raworth i: Marriott, 1 M. V\. it Fin. G57, 7i»7; Brown c. Kennedy. 

4K. 043. 33Bcav. 133. 

' Sc^ravo v. Kirwan, Beat. 1 ")7 ; Mac- * Tate v. Williamson, L. R. 1 Eq. 528 ; 

donakfc. Lillic. 1 Bllirli, 315; Bnlklov 2 Ch. App. «.") ; see Wyse f. Lambert, 

V. AVilford, 2 C'l. it Fin. I«i2, s Blitrh'.s 10 Ir. Ch. 370. 

N. S. Ill ; Bayly v. 'Wilkins. 3 .T. it L. ' Davis r. Abraham. 5 W. R. 465. 

6S0; Nanney r. Williams, 22 Beav. 452; 'Hobday v. Fcters, 28 Boav. 349; 

Corl'ey v. Stafford, 1 D. <t J. 238; X'esbitt v. Berridjrc, 32 Beav. 2S4; 

Greenfield v. Bates, 5 Ir. Ch. 210; see Foillon v. Martin, 1 Sandf. Ch. (.\mer.) 

LanMev r. Fi^^her, Beav. 100 ; Waters 500. 

V. Tiiorn, 22 Beav. 547. " 2 L. J. Ch. N. S. 195. 

* I'urcell I', ilacnamara, 14 Ves. 01 ; 



* Poillon V. Martin, 1 Sandf. Ch TjCO. 



FR.M I) imm:simi;u. 



Coiisidcrntions of a liki' iiatuic ajiply to the c:iso of persons 
stanilini; in tlio relation nl" principal ami airi-nl. A person 
who is an aircMit for anutluM" umlortakcs a iluly in which tiicro 
is :i contiilont'o rop«»scil, and •.vliicli ho is hcnitul to execute to 
tlio utmost advantai^e of the |)erson wlio employs him. The 
]»riueipal is entitled to the full hi-nolit <>f the l>est exertions of 
the atrent. An ai^cnt cannot he allowed to i)lace himself in a 
situation which, unck'r ordinary circumstances, mii^ht tempt 
him not to do that which is the best for liis principal, lie 
may not derive any profit or advantage from the business in 
which he is employed, beyond the compensation to which he 
i.- entitled for his services.' * 

' East India Co. r. ITcnclinnin, 1 Vo:*. orowirz, 3 K. «t .T. 2.10; Marwcll ». 

Jr. 289; Masscy «'. iMvis, 2 Vt-a. Jr. I'ort Ti-nant Patent Steam Fufl (.'o , 24 

.•{17; Ez-iHirte Iliiglu-!', fi Ves. ('>17; lU-av. r.t:> ; Tyrn-ll r. 1 tank of London, 

York IJiiildinirs Co. r. .M'Kcnzic, 3 Pat. !'• H. L. 2i),' 3'.' : .Vttwool i;. Merry- 

Sc. Ap. ;;".ts, 3 Uoss's L. C. Sc. 30.'); wcatiuT, 37 L. J.Ch. 35; seo liensun 

Kotliscliild f. Brockman, 2 Dow «fe fl. v. Hcatliorii, 1 Y. tfe C. C. C. 32fi ; 

\X^. ') lilif^irii N. S. If..'); lk'n!»<in r. llitclii.' v. Ct)U|iiT, 28 Hcnv. 314; 

Ilcathorn, 1 Y. i C. C. C 312; IJcntk-y ^Val^llttln v. blaiulon, 1 D. J. tic S. 

r. Craven, 18 lieav. 75; Beck v. Kant- 678. 



♦ Rc.id r. Warner, 5 Paige, 650; Banker v. Miles, 80 Me. 431 ; Knabc 
r. Pemot. 10 La. An. 13 ; Meeker v. York, 13 La. An. 18; Bruce r. Daven- 
port. oO Barb. 349; Grant t. Seitzinger, 2 Penna. 525; M:is.sie r. Watt.s, 
Cninch. 14s ; Church v. Sterling, 10 Ct. 38S ; flyers' Appeal, 3 Barr, 403; 
Mi-I)«)nal(l r. Fitliian, 1 (Jilman. 20'.i; Kanada r. North, 14 Mo. 015. 

Tiie paramount and vital principle of tlu- law iroveniing the relation 
f)t* principal and agent, is good faith ; and so sedulously is this principle 
guarded, that all departures from it are esteemed frauds upon the conti- 
dence bestowed. Kcighler v. Savage Manuf. Co., 12 Md. 383. 

An agent who purchases proi)erty for himself, which he is employed to 
purcha-ue for another, l»ecoujes a trustee for his principal. Massie r. Watt.n, 
» (ranch, 148; Church r. Sterling, 10 Ct. 3S8 ; Parkhurst r. Alexander, 1 
John.H. Ch. 394 ; James r. M'lvernan, Johns. 543 ; McKinley r. Irvine. 13 
Ala. 881; Wellford r. Chancellor, 5 Graft. 39; Matthews v. Light, 32 Me. 
305 ; Hchedda t. Sawyer, 4 McLean, 181 ; Blount r. Bobeson, 3 Jones' E(j. 
73; (;ardner e. Ogilen, 22 N. Y. 327; Moore r. M.andelbaum, H Midi. 433; 
Pill-bury r. PilM.ury, 17 Me. 107; Burrill r. liuli, 3 Samlf. ( h. 15; Ilar- 
jjravffl r. King, 5 Ired. Kq. 491. 

An agent who iH emj'loyed to sill prupi rty, can not make himself agent 



FRAUD I'RRSUMKD. 173 

There is no riilu to prevent an ai^ent from dt'aliii;f with his 
principal in respect of the matter in wliidi Ik- is emj)hjye(l 
as agent. l»iit an agent who seeks to iiph-ild ;i transaction 
between himself and his |>riiici]i.il, mnst he ahle tu show tn 
the Batifaction of the court that he gave his principal the same 
advice in the matter as an independent and disintcresterj 
adviser wonld have done, and made a full disclosure of all he 
knew respecting the property, and that the jirincii)al knew 
M'lth wh(»m he \vas dealing, and made no ohjeetion to tlie 
transaction, and that the jirice was just and fair.' * However 



'York Bnildiniis Co. v. M'IConzio. 3 »>. Kornan, 2 Dr. tt War. 31 ; Trcvclyan 

Pat. Sc. Ap. li'.lS, ;i Ross' U C. Se. 305 ; v. Charter, 4 L. J. Ch. N. S. 20'.» ; C'liar- 

Lowtlior V. Lowtlier, 13 Ves. 103; W alt tor r. Truvelvan, 11 CI. & Fin. 714, 732; 

V. Grove., 2 Sch. A Let 4!)2 ; Wood- Mulliallcn (-."Maruni. 3 l)r. .t War. 317; 

house »•. Meredith, 1 J. <fc W. 2ii4 ; Lord Murphy (•. (/.-hea, 2 J. & L. 422. 425 ; 

^elsev V. l\hoades, 2 Sim. A:. St. 41, 1 Clarke'/'. Tiiipiiitr. '•» Heav. 284 ; Blove'H 

lili^li's N. S. 1 ; Cane v. Lord Allen, 2 Trust. 1 Mac. it (i. 488; Lewi.s v. flill- 

Dow. 2'.»4; Itotiisehiid ;•. I'.roekman, 2 man. 3 11. L. 607; Rhodes v. Bate, L. K. 

Dow it CI. IKS. 5 ]{li-li'3 N. S. IC.o; 1 Ch. Ap. 252. 
Barker v. Harrison, 2 Coll. 540 ; Molony 



for other parties for the purchase thereof. Moore r. Mantlelbaum, 8 >Iicb. 
433. 

An auctioneer can not purchase at a sale made by hini.sc'lf. Kearney r. 
Taylor, 1") How. 494; Vcazie v. Winiams, 8 How. 134; Ingcr.-ou r. Stark- 
weather, Walk. Cli. 34G. 

If an aLTcnt converts property, the principal may, at his election, ratify 
the transaction, and claim whatever profits are nuule by it. Motley v. 
Motley, 7 Iretl. Eq. 211. 

If a person at a judicial sale represents that he is bidding in the in- 
terest of the owner, and thereby prevents competition, he becomes a mere 
trustee for the owner. Cocks v. Izard, 7 Wall. 559 ; Brewer r. Lynch. 1 
Paige, 147; Denton r. McKenzic. 1 Dessau. 289; Martin r. Blight, 4 J. J. 
Marih. 491 ; Wood c. Hudson, 5 Munf. 423. 

An agent buying property under the judgment of his principal, becomes 
a mere trustee for his principal if he buys for less than the claim. Smith 
e. Lansing, 22 N. Y. 520 : Eishleman r. Lewis, 49 Penn. 410. 

* Brooke r. Berry, 2 Gill. 83 ; Teackle v. Bailey, 2 Brock. 43 ; Torrey 
r. Bank of Orleans, 9 Paige. 049 ; 8. c. 7 Hill, 200 ; Dob.son r. Rjicey, 7 N. 
Y. 216 ; Moseley r. Buck. 3 Munf. 232 ; Butler r. Haskell. 4 Dessau. 051 ; 
Taylor c. Kno.x, 1 Dana, 391 ; s. c. 5 Dana, 400; Marshall r. Joy, 17 Vt. 
546 ; Casey v. Casey, 14 111. 112 ; Fisher's Appeal, 34 Penn. 29 ; Moore r. 



171 FIIMI) I'KKSrMED. 

lair tilt' trail.-. let icii may U- in titlur rr-]»i'c'ts, any underliaml 
• li'alini; till tin- I'art <>!" an aircnt will n-iitlcr it impeachable at 
the election of the |»rincij»al. It is immaterial that the agent 
may have taken no advantage l»y the hargain. It is snflicient 
that he has not acted with that good I'aith which the court 
re<iuires, and has ]>la('ed himself in a situation which might 
tempt an agt-nt tn allow his own interest to come into contlict 
with that which his duty retj[uires him to do.* - 

An agent who is employed to sell, cannot hecomc the pur- 
chaser surreptitiously and without the knowledge or assent of 
hib employer ;*' t nor can an agent, wIkj is employed to j)ur- 
chasc, purchase secretly from himself, or from his own tnistee,':}: 

' (Jillctt V. Peppcrcorne, 3 Rcnv. 78; Kx-parte Iltiichc*, Vcs. 617; Wood- 
Murphy >•. O'Shea. 'J . I. <t L. I'J'i; Clinr- house V. MiTodith. 1 J. it W. 20t ; 
tor V. Trcvelynn, 11 CI. <fc Kin. 714; Trovelynn /•. Chart or, 4 L. J. Ch. N. S. 
Clnrke r. Tii)pinir, 9 Bt-nv. 284 ; Wilson 2t>'.i; Churti^r v. Trevelyan. 11 CI. A- 
f. Sliort, G Ha. 3s:! : Ilobdiiy i. PcttTS, Fin. 714; Kili^ccunibo t'. Strani^or, 1 
28 Bt'av. ;J4S) ; Tyrrell v. Bunk of Lon- Jur. 400 ; Murphy v. U\Shca. 2 J. d- L. 
(Ion, 10 II. J. 26; Wentworth v. Lloyd, 422; Lewis v. llillmnn, 3 II. L. 607; 
32 Beav. 467. Bentlev i'. Craven, is Beav. 7."). 

' York Buildin;;-^ Co. v. M'Konzio. 3 ' East India Co. / . llenchmnn, 1 VA. 

Fat. Sc. Ap. 3'J8, 3 Ross's L. C. Sc. 305 ; Jr. 2S9 ; JIaasey v Davies, 3 Vea. 317 ; 



Mnndelbaum, 8 ilich. 433; Farnani v. Brooks, 9 Pick. 212 ; Comstock r. 
Comstock. 57 liarb. 4.")3 

If a party (.ntcring into a contract has the full means of knowiedgx; 
committed to him by the other party, and does not clioosc or ncgl(k;t3 to 
avail himself of tliem, it is his own fault if the barjiain turns out unfavor- 
able. Fatnam r. Brooks, 9 Pick. 212. 

♦ Mnore r. Moore, 5 N. Y. 2."")G ; s. c. 4 Sandf Ch. :]? ; Gould r. Gouhl, 
30 Barb. 270; Se '/a r r. Edwards, 11 Lei<,'h, 213; Shannon r. Marmaihike, 
14 Tex. 217; Barton r. Mo8.s, 32 111. 50; Cram r. Mitdull, 1 Sandf Cli. 
2.')1 ; Cuni'icrland Coal Co. r. Sherman, 30 Barb. T^TtZ. 

t Dolison r. Hacey, 3 Sandf, Ch. 00; Torrey r. Bank of New Orleans, 
PaiUf, 041) ; Banks r. .ludah, H Ct. 14.'). 

Such a pur( base is not void, but voidable. Gaines r. Acre, Minor, 

lil. 

There is no di.stinction bitwcin a judicial and a private sale,where the 
agent controls, and the officer arts under his instructions. Moore c, Moore, 
5 N. Y. a-jfl: Bridyen r, Atkins. 2r» Te.x. 5J8S 

J Conkey r. Bond, 30 .\. Y. 427 ; 8. c 13 Abb, Pr. (N. S.) 415 ; Marshall 
r. .Joy, 17 Vt 540. 

The rule applies only to agents who are relied upon for counsel and 



FRAUD PRKSIMI'I). 17.-, 

or for liis own Itciiclit.' TIu; rule Mpplicfi wliptlicr flic .'ifcnt 
t'iii|)loyc<l f(. jiiii-cliasc was act iiully in llic jio.^itioii of ;i \ciuIor 
or intfiulcd to place liiiiisclf in that |)(»sition.^ So alx) an 
ai^unt who is ciMi>loyud to settle a debt, or to make an arraiii^e- 
ment, cannot imrcliaso up the deht, or any charge upon the 
])roperty which is the suhject of the arran_i,^einent, fur his own 
heneflt.' The disiihilily extends to the clei'k (»f an ai^n-nt mIio 
in the course of his employment, lias aecjuired a knowledge of 
the property of the principal.* 

The rule that an a,i,a'nt dealini; M'ith his j)rineij)al must 
ini})art kiiowlcdn'e accpiired in his ulHce, does not apjdy where 
the relation has ceased, and there is another agent with e<jual 
means of knowledge, to guard the interest of the principal in 
the transaction.' After the relation of principal and agent 
has wholly ceased, or the agent has divested himself of that 
character, the parties are restored to their competency to deal 
with each other.*' Ihit an agent who has, in the course of his 
emjdoyment, acquired some peculiar knowledge as to the 
property, cannot, after the cessation of the relation, use the 
knowledge so acquired for his own benefit, and to the preju- 
dice of his former client.' 



Rothschild v. Brockman, 2 Dow & CI. 
188; DriscoU v. Bromley, 1 .lur. 2:58; 
Oiliett J'. Pcppercornt', 3 Beav. 78 ; 
Barker v. Harrison, 2 Coll. 5»t'. ; Bent- 
ley ''. Cniven, 18 Beav. 7"> ; Jlatiirin >>. 
Trediiiiiick, H L. T. X. S. 82 ; Tyrrell v. 
Bank of London, 10 H. L 2(5. 

•Lees V. Niittall, 2 M. .fc K. 819; 
Taylor t-. Salmon, 4 M. it C. 134 ; see 
Cni-ter »>. Palmer, 8 Cl. <t Fin. f.57; 
Beek V. Kantoriiwiez, 3 K. it .1. 230; 
llolxlay >'. Peters, 28 Beav. 310. 

* Bock r. Kantorowicz, 3 K. <fc J. 
242. 



' Cane v. Lord Allen. 2 Dow. 294 ; 
Heed I'. Norris, 2 M. tk C. 'iCl ; Carter 
V. Palmer. 8 Cl. & Fin. fi.')7. 11 Bli-li's 
N. S. 397 ; Hobday v. Peters, 28 Beav. 
349. 

* Gardner v. Ogdcn, 8 Smith (Amer.) 
327. 

' Scott V. Dunbar, 1 Moll. 442. 

• Cliarter v. Trevelyan. 4 L. J. Oh. N. 
S. 2o9; see York Buildini^s Co. v. 
M'Kenzie, 3 Pat. So. Ap. 379, »»7>ra, pp. 
ir)3, \r>'.K ir,7. 

' Carter r. Palmer, 8 Cl. ck Fin. 657; 
Holman i-. Loynes, 4 D. il. «t G. 270l 



direction, and whose employment is rather a trust than a service, and not 
to those who are employed merely as instruiv.ents in the performance of 
Bome appointed service. Deep River Gold Mining Co. c. Fox, 4 Ired. 
Eq. CI. 



17G >M:Ari> pkisimup. 

Ail ni^out, for iustanco, who in the course of liis iiiijiloy- 
ment an such has discovtTi'd a (k-tcct in the title of liia ein- 
plover, cannot after the rehition has ceased use his knowledj^e 
BO gained to ac(iuire a title for himself.'* Nor can a man 
who 18 employed as a C(»nlidential airent esca|H' from liahility 
under the ]>rcti'nci' that the l»u>ine88 has been entrusted to an 
ai,'ent and not to him, unh'ss it can be shown that the agent 
was intended to act, and in fact acted independently of him.' 

There is no rule i»reventing the same agent from acting 
for the opposing parties, ]»ut he niu.-t he able to satisfy the 
court that the parties were substantially at arms' length in 
the transaction, and that there has been the utmost fairness 
throughout.' f 

A gift by a man to a person who has heeu for many years 
liis confidential agent and adviser is valid, unless the j)arty 
who seeks to set it aside can show that some advantige was 
taken by the agent of the relation in which he stood to the 
donor. If the conduct of the agent in the matter appears 
to have been fair, honest, and Jjond JiJe, it is immaterial tliat 
the deed of gift may have been drawn up by his scdicitor 
without the intervention of a disinterested thiril party.* The 
rule with respect to the c^ipacity of an agent to accept a gift 
from his principal is not so strict as it is in the ease of 



• Ringo t>. BinnB, 10 Peters ( Amer.), 195 ; Mntthie v. Edwnrds, 16 L. J. CIl 
201*. 405. 

» UhotloB V. BaU-8, L. U. 1 Hi. Ap. * Iliintor v. Alkiim. 3 M. A K. 118. 

^U'l. Nicol V. Vnui;iiiiii, 1 (1. «t Kin. r.t.'» ; 

* Hc'Rxe V. Hritiiit. D. .M. tt <;. (^'l^^•, si-o Wyso r. Lumbort, It". Ir. Ch. .ST'J ; 
(Jnrvt-y »'. M.-.Minii. '.• Ir. K<|. r>-if>\ sro Uhotli's v. liiite, L. U. 1 Ck \\t. 242. 
Kliixk's f. licuuvoir, tl liligli'a N. S. 



♦ Rinpn r. IJiniiH, 10 IVf. 209. 

t On-cn\V(>«Kl r. S|)rin^'. TA Harh. WITi. A person rjin not l)o njront for 
both particH when ju<luiiu-nt or <lis(nti()n is to he cxcrci-icd. Vandrrpoi-I 
r. Kcamoy, 2 E. I). Sinitli, 170; Duiilol. r. Hii tianh, 2 K. I). Siniili, isl; 
Central Ins. Co. r. Protcclive Ins. Co., 11 N, Y. bo. 



FRAii) i'i:i:simi:d. 177 

nttorncy and client, trustee; and rvHtui (juc iruKt, and ^'uardi.in 
and ward. The relation in which the parties stand to each 
other beiii;:: of a sort less km.wii and deUnite than in those 
other cases, the jealousy is diiniiiishcd.^ 

The rule of* equity with respect to dealings hot ween 
guardian and ward is extremely strict,^ * and inijjoses a gen- 
eral inability on the ])arties to deal with each other.M' Where 
the relation of guardian and ward is subsisting between two 
parties, if a gift or anything in the nature of a gift proceeds 
from the ward towards the guardian, wlien the ward has just 
come of full age, such transactions are subject to be viewed 
with the utmost jealousy by courts of equity. It is almost 
impossible that transactions of such a nature can be sustained, 
unless the party claiming the benclit of the gift can show to 
the satisfaction of the court that his influence has not been 
misapplied in the particular transaction. Unless it appears 
to be a spontaneous act on the part of the ward, or unless he 
was informed in all the particulars of the nature, character, 
and probable consequence of his proceeding, such a transaction 
cannot stand,* X Transactions between guardian and ward 
cannot be allowed to stand, even although they may have 
taken place after the guardianship has come to a close, unless 

'Hunter v. Atkins, 3 M. «V:K. 113; 2'2fi. Tutor rem pupilli cmcrc non polc^-t. 

but see llobilay v. Tctcrs, 28 Bcav. Di;,'. xviii, tit. 1, K-tr. 347. 
349. * Arclicr v. Hudson, 15 L. J. CI). 211 ; 

* ITylton 1'. Ilvlton, 2 Vcs. 548, 540; Mulliallen v. Maruni, 3 Dr. & War 
Hatch V. llatcli.'.t Vt-s. 2<.t2. 317 ; see OKiin v. Sain'.nrn. 2 Atk. ir,; 

• See Dawsou i-. ilass.^'y, 1 B. «fe B. Bcasley v. Magrath, 2 Sch. <fc Lef. 35. 



♦ nanna v. Spotts, 5 B. Mon. 3G2 ; Wliilt r. Parker, 8 Barb. 48; Van- 
nickle r. Malta, IG La. An. 3'2."). 

t Galatian r. Erwin, 1 Ilopk. 48; Lee r. Fox, Dana, 171 ; Walker r. 
Walker, 101 Mass. 1G9 ; Scott r. Frcelaud, 7 S. & M. 409 ; Meek c. Perry, 30 
Miss. 190. 

X Waller r. Armistcad, 3 Leigli, 11: Love r. Lea, 2 Ired. Eq. 627. 
There is no distinction between a deed {^iven as a gratuity, and a deed of 
release, acquittance, or discbarge. Waller r, Armistead, 2 Leigli, 11. 



178 rn\n) rur.srMi:D. 

tlio iiilliu'noo Mlilch is ])rcsunied to ari.si' from tlie relation 
lia^j ceasi'*! t«) t-xist.* * The inHiiuncc may font iiuie to exist 
for a coiisidcralile time alter tlic actual relation has ceased to 
exist.' As lontj as the accounts between the jtartiis have not 
been fully settKd, or the estate still remains in some Bort 
\inder the control of the ir'iardiaii, the intluence will he i»re- 
sumed to exist.^f The inlluence will indeed he j)resumed 
to exist, unless there is distinct evidence of its determination.* 
After the relation has entirely ceased not merely in name 
hut in laet, and a full and fair settlement of all tran.sactions 
arisine: out of the relation has been made, and sullicient time 
lias elapsed to put the parties in a ])osition of complete 
independence to each other, there is no objection to any 
bounty or ^n-ant conferred by the ward on his former •guardian.' 
It is not necessary for the ajtplication of the principle that 

• Ilvlton V. Ilvlt in. 2 A>s. 5tS, r.lO ; Bon, 15 L. J. Cli. 211 ; XIaiiland r. Back- 

Ilntch V. Hatch", y Ve>. 2'.t2; Carey f. housp. 17 L. J. Ch. 121; Davics v. 

Curty, 2 bdi. <k Lef. 173; Dawson v. Davies. "J Jur. N. S. Iti02. 

Mass.-v, 1 B. d: li. 21'.>; Avlward i'. ' llylton c, Ilylton, 2 Yea. 647; Daw- 

Kianii'V. 2 B. it B. 47S; (VNtill v. Bon v. Massey," 1 15. «fc B. 229; soo 

Ilaniinill. Beat. (il8; Maitland i: Irv- Steadman i: r'allin,'. 3 Atk. 423; Mell- 

iiiir, l."> Sim. 4:'<7; An-Iur v. lludscjn, isli i: yivWinh, 1 Siin. it St. KiS; Uevett 

1.'. L. J. (-1). 211; Maitland c. Back- r. Harvey, »7.. 5i»2; Matthew v. Brise, 

hc.iiBe, 17 U J. Cli. 121 ; K^pey i: Luke, 14 Beav! 343; Kspey f. Lake, 10 Ha. 

l(t Ha. 2CU; .sec Rhodes «•. Bate, L. U. 200. 

1 Ch. Ap. 252. * lUiodcs V. Bate, L. R. 1 Gi. Ap. 

'Hutch I'. Hatch, 9 Ves. 202 ; Ayl- 252; see Archer v. Hudson, 16 L. J, 

ward V. Kearncv. 2 B. it B. 4t'i"3 ; Ch. 211. 

O'Neill ••. Hiiiniiiill. Beat. filH; Uevett » llylton v. Hylton, 2 Ves. 647, 649; 

r. llnrvey, I Sim. it ."^t 5'i2 ; Maitlaiid 8oo BeasKy r. Majjrath, 2 Seh. «t Lcf. 

V. Irving, 15 Sim. 437; Arciier v. Hud- 35; liosa i-. Steele, 1 Ir. Etj. 17L 



♦ Lcc r. Fox, Dana, 71; Johnson v. Johnson, 5 Ala. 00; Fish r. 
Miller, 1 HolT. Ch. 207; Hipalie r. Moreworthy, 1 Sandf. Ch. :)[)[); Brewer 
r. Vanars<lalf, G Dana, 201 ; l{icliard.sou r. Liuncy, 7 B. Moii. oil ; Sherry 
r StunKbiiry, 3 M<l. 1520. 

t William.s ». Powell, 1 Ired. Eq. 400; Galo r. Wells, 12 Barli, 84; 
Waller r. Arinistead, 2 Lei^di, 11 ; Wri;,dit r. Arnold, 14 B. Mon. 0:{8. A 
release freely ond fairly ^nven without mi»rcpre.sentation, or undue influ- 
cn<e-i is valid. Kirliy c. Taylor, (J Johns. Cb. 242; Kirliy r. Turner, 1 
Hopk :J00; Bouthall r. Clark, 3 Stew. &, Port. y:jy; Myers c. liives, 11 
Ala. TOO. * 



rnAii) rurscMDi). ]7f) 

tlio relation of /guardian and wanl should exist in jxTleet 
btrietuess ot" terms, or that the ^niardian Hlunild ])c a ^u irdiau 
aj)poiuted hy the ('oiii't ot" Chancery, or numinatcd hy the 
lather. Jf the y(»un:^ person lives with, and is bnnight nj) or 
under the care, inlluence, and control of a near relative of 
mature a^e — if the relation of •ruardian and ward thus subsist 
between them — the principle is e<pially applicalde.' * 

The pi'inci[)le applies to the case of a thiiil jiai'ty Avho 
makes himself a party with the guardian who obtains a secur- 
ity from his ward.'' 

The case of i)arent and child comes within the same prin- 
ciple.^ The influence which a parent has naturally over a 
child makes it the duty of the court to watch over and ]»rotect 
the interests of the child. A child may deal with or make a 
gift to a parent, and such dealing or i^ift is good, if it be not 
tainted with parental inlluence, operating on the hopes or 
fears or necessities of the child. A child is presumed to be 
under j)arental inlluence, as long as the dominion of the 
parent lasts. "Whilst that dominion lasts, it lies on the parent 
upholding the transaction or maintaining the gift to disprove 
the exercise of parental influence by showing that the child 
was really a free agent, and had competent independent ad- 
vice, or had at least competent means of forming an inde- 
pendent judgment, and fully understood what he was doing 
and was desirous of doing it.* f The principle applies for at 

' Bcasloy v. Jtngrath, 2 Scb. & Lcf. Llowcllin v. Cobbold, 1 Sm. A' G. 3T0; 

.31 ; Kevott V. Harvey, 1 Sim. ife St. I'rideaux v. Lonsdale, 1 D. J. «k S. 

602 ; Mulhallen »■. Jlnnim, 3 Dr. «fe 433. 

War. 317 ; Archer v. Hudson. 15 L. J. » Espcy i>. Lake, 10 Ha. 260. 

Ch. 211 ; AUfrey v. Allfrey, 1 JIao. & * Casbome v. Barsbam. 2 Bear. Vrt. 

G. 98; Espey w.'Lake, 10 Ha. 2G0, 202; * Carpenter v. Heriot, 1 Ed. 838; 



* Waller V. Arniistcad. 2 Leigh, 11 ; Ilanna r. Spott?, 5 B. ^ton. 3G2 ; 
Willman it al Appeal, 28 Pcnn. 370. 

t The presumption is that the advanrement of the interest of the 
child was tlic object iu view, and the deed is not prima jack void. It ia 



ISO rKAii) 1'Ki:si:mi:i). 

least ft year after ll»e cdiiiiiii; of ay^v. of the child, ami will ex- 
tend Iteyond the year, if the duiniiiion lasts.' The court will 
indeed j^resunie the continuance of the influence, uidess there 
is a distinct evidence of its dcterniinalion.- Wlurc the par- 
ental inlluence is disitr(»vi'd or that inlluence has ceased, a 
dealinir l»etween ]»arent and child, or a ^'ift from a child to a 
parent, stands on the same fodtiiii,^ as any other dealing,' or 
• 'ift.' The entreaty of a siik iatlier to a child does not 
anu'unt to undue inlluence,* iSor is the mere fact of a 
daughter soon after coniiuf^ of a'j:e voluntarily givin*,' securities 
to a creditor of lier father in payment of his dehts of itself 
cround for imputing undue inHuencc to the father.' 

Transactions between parent and child which proceed 
upon arrangements between tlicm I'or the settlement of the 
family property, (.>r wliich tend to the peace and security of 
the familv and the avoidance of litigation, do not come within 

IIcTcn r. Heron, 2 Atk. 100; Yoiinc: ». IIni;liton v. IIojil'*"". l-"^ Benv, 800; 

I'eachov, if>. '2rA ; HhoiUs »•. Cook, 4 Wrii^lit r. Viiiuk'rpliiiik, 8 I). M. «fe G. 

L. J. Cii! 149 ; CiiHl)(>rne f. Unrslinm, 2 1:55; Bury v. Uitpcnhcim, 2rt Hcav. 

Ikav. 7V); lloirliton v. ll«)i:liti>n, 16 6'.tJ; Wnrcle v. Mckson, 5 .lur. N. S. 

licav. 278; Il«rtoi)p i-. Hurtopp. 21 fiyj ; Duvica v. Diivifs, 4 iVxtX. 417; 

Bcnv. 2:.y ; Baker v. Bradley, 7 1>. M. Ber.loe 1: Dawson, :{4 Benv. f.f»3 ; Cliani- 

<t G.S'.C; Wri^rht i'. Vaiidiiplank, 8 l)ers c. Crahhe, iV*. ITi? ; but sec Thorn- 

I). M. tt (1. Ki'"', IJt". ; Bury r. Oppeii- ber 1: Sluanl, 12 Beav. 68'.t. 

lieirn, 2t'. l>eav. .'.'.t4 ; Savery r. Kiuir, S ' lUuided v. Bute, L. U. 1 CIj. Ap. 

H L 027. tp.')r) ; Jeiuier r. Jeniier, 2 I). 252. 

K. A- J. :<'>y ; Davies v. Davies, 4 GilF. ' Wright v. Vnndorplank, 8 I). M. it 

4i7; Ikrdoe f. Dawson, 34 Beav. 003; G. 13.'>, 140; Bury v. Uppcnheim, 20 

CliarnlHTfl v. Crabbe, li. 4.'.7 ; I'otts t>. Beav. :)lt4. 

Surr. ib. &43 ; Bealu v. Billing, 13 Ir. ' Farrent i'. Blanchford, 1 D. J. 4 S. 

Ch. 2.'>0. B'7. 

' 7 H. L. 722. per Lord Crnnworth. ' Tliornber v. Slienrd, 12 Bonv. r>89; 

See Walker t-. Symonds, 3 bw, 1, 72; sec us to undue influence, in/nt, p. 18 1. 



the <luty, however, of courts of equity carefully to watch and cxftmine 
the cirruinHtiUHCH. attending,' traiiHat lions of tliis kind to dis<'over if any 
undue influence lias been exercised in olitaiiiin^' tlie conveyance. Jciikind 
r. I»ye, 12 IVt. 241 ; Taylor r. Taylor, 8 How. 1H:J. 

The impulse of filial duty nntl utfection will be deemed a satisfactory 
consideration for a d(i<l in inslanfes only in wliicli the motivjs arc shown 
to have Ix-en free and uncouslraiucil in their o])cratiun. Taylor c. Taylor, 
8 How. Ib3. 



FIIAUD rilKSUilKD. ISl 

tho urdiiiary rules of tlio cuurt M'ith inspect to |.arcntul iullu- 
enee. It" tho settleiiieTit i« one by wliicli tlic j)art'iit acquires 
no Iteiiefit, not alrt'a<ly ])0S8eH8e(l I>y liiiii, aM<l lie a reasonaljlo 
arran<^enient and tV»r the henelit ot" the family, and be not 
obtained through niisi"ej»i'esentatinii or KU|t|)re.-.-ion of the 
truth, it will be 8uj»])oi'ted even although it may appear that 
the parent diji exert parental iniluenec and authority over the 
son to j)roeure his exei-ution of it. If the cliild is fully aware 
of the nature and effect of the transaction, it is of no conse- 
quence that he may not have had tlie advice of a eei»arate 
solicitor; nor can he be heard to say that he executed the set- 
tlement with precipitancy. If the settlement be for the benefit 
of tlie family, a court of ecjuity will not inquire into the 
degree of influence which may have been exerted.^ Arrange- 
ments between members of a family to assist their several 
objects or relieve their several necessities, are affected by so 
many j>eculiar considei'ations and are influenced by so many 
diflerent motives that they are withdraMn from the ordinary 
rules by which the court is guided in adjudicating between 
other parties.^ The court does not minutely weigh the con- 
siderations on one side or the other. Even ignorance of 
rights may not avail to impeach the transaction. But trans- 
actions in the nature of a bounty from a child to a parent soon 
after coming of age, are viewed by the court with jealousy.' 
If the parent gains some advantage by the transaction 
which he did not previously possess, the general principles 
M-ith respect to parental influence apply, and the transaction 
cannot be supported, unless it can be shown that the child 



' Twcildell V. Twc'ddcll. T. & R. 1 ; ner, 2 D. F. & J. 354; Potts v. Surr, S4 

Bellamy »-. Sabine, 2 I'h. 425; Cooke y. Beav. 543; Williams v. Williams, L. 11. 

Burtchaell, 2 Dr. A "War. 105; Wallace 2 Cli. Aj.i>. 2'.t5. 

!•. Wnllnce, i6. 452; Iloijhton r. lloirh- " Bellamy v. Sabine, 2 I'll. 4U5; 

ton, 15 Bcav. 2T>i, 305; Baker >: Brail- Head r. Godlce, .Julin«. 5r;(";. 
lev, V I>. M. «fc G. 5117; Dimsdale v. 'Baker v. Bradley, 7 1> M. A G. 

Dimsdale, 3 Drew. 656; Jenuer v. Jen- 620. 



182 



iH.Mi) rKi:srMi:i>. 



knew what lie wn.s doini; nml Mas desirous of doini; it, nnd 
was not unduly influenced l>y lli^i father.* The name consider- 
ations npi)ly where a third person takes a benefit under a 
deed executed hy a son in favor of his father." 

If, however, the ]>erson who takes the henefit is a member 
of the family, and the |>areiit himself takes no benefit, the 
transaction will not be set aside, even thou_i,di^ considerable 
pressure may have been nsed by the parent to induce the son 
to execute it. In AVychcrley v. AVycherley,^ where the father 
of a familv, with some warmth of temper, insisted upon a 
deed beinc^ executed by a son for the benefit of his two sisters. 
Lord Northiiii^ton would not set it aside.* 

The principles which <rovern the case of dealings of persons 
standing in a fiduciary relation apply as between partners,'* 
between principal and surety,' and generally to the case of 
persons who clothe themselves with a character which brings 
them within the range of the principle.' A man who pos- 
sesses the confidence of another will nut be allowed by a court 



' Heron v. Heron, 2 Atk. ir.O; 
Hofchton V. llopliton. 15 IJeav. liTS ; 
Baker v. Brndluy, 7 D. M. it G. f.20 ; 
Saver}' v. KiiiK. ■'» H. L. (ViT; sic IJofjers 
r. liruce, Uent. 4Xi'>; Uliotle^ r. Couke, 
4 L. J. <'li. 1J'.» ; WiiUiue i: Wallace, 3 
Dr. «t War. ■it>'2 ; .lenner i'. .leniier, '2, 1). 
F. & J. S.'i'J; I'«tt.s V. Surr. :M lieav. 
643 ; Beriloe v. Dawson, tTi. 003. 

• Berdoc «•. Dawson, ib. Sec Scr- 
combc r. Saunders, ib. 38'2. 

• 2 Kd.n. 17.'.. 

♦ li.i.tl. V f. M.iekay, .'il Beav. ir.l. 

* Boyue v. Ferj^nson, r» l)ow. l.M ; 
Burton r. Wookuy, ti Madd. :ir,7 ; Mnd- 
deford v. Auslwick, 1 Situ. 8'.t, 'J M. «t 
K '271»: Spitfal f. Smith, Taiid. -t.'. ; 
ChamherH i-. Howell, 11 Beav. 8; IJeiit- 
ley V. Craven, 18 Beav. 70 ; Moclurc v. 



Ilipley, 2 Mac. A G. 274; Blissett «■. 
Daniel, 10 Ha. r.:;S ; Cl.'s:;,' e. Edmond- 
son. .s D. M. it Vf. 807; (.'leinents v. 
Hall. 2 D. it J. 17;i ; Terens e. .lolinson, 
3 Sm. <t IJ. 11'.' ; comiJ. Knight v. Mnr- 
joribanks, 1 1 Beav. 322. 

• See Hccil r. Norris, 2 M. A C. 
3tU ; Khodes v. Bate, L. U. 1 Ch. Aji. 
252. 

^ Tato V. ■Williamson, L. U. 2 Ch. 
App. 65. See Greeidaw v. Kinj;, 6 
Jur. 18; Giddiii'/s r. {i'uUVwf^, 3 Uuss. 
211 ; Waters v. IJ.tiley, 2 Y. it C. C. C. 
21'.»; Tanner v. Hlwortliy, 1 iJeav. 487; 
Smith V. Kav, 7 H. L. 7.'><>; Coulson r. 
Alli.-on. 2 D! F. it J. .'.21 ; I'rideaux r. 
Lonsdale, 1 D. J. it .S. 433, tupra, p. 
152. 



* FlnRK r. Mann, 2 Hiimner, 480; Simmons r. Vulcan Oil Vo. f.l Penn. 
202: Short r. Stev«'n»on, ('.:{ IVnn. It.'). 

The rule <lo(ii not apply to dealin^'H that are not within the scope of 
the partneruhip bujjincjw. AV heeler c. Sage, 1 Wall. TjIW. 



FUAii) riM:si-.Mi;i). 183 

of o<|uity to take advantage of that situatiiui, altlii»u;,'!i tlio 
relation of solicitor and client, or ])rincii)al and a^^cnt, be not 
strictly constifiilcij befwccn tlicin. It is enon^dj that a man 
be merely consulted as a confidential friend.^ It is ininiatc^rial 
that no definite relation may exist between the parties.^* 

The principle on which a court of equity acts in relievin;^' 
against transactions on the ground of inequality of footing 
between the parties, is not confined to cases where a fiduciary 
relation can be shown to exist, but extends to all the varieties 
of relations in which dominion may be exercised by one man 
over another, and applies to every case where influence is ac- 
quired and abused or •where confidence is reposed and betrayed.' 
In cases where a fiduciary relation (hies not subsist between tho 
parties, the court will not, as it does where a fiduciary relation 
subsists, presume confidence put and influence exerted : the 
confidence and the influence must, in such cases, be proved 
extrinsically, but when they are proved extrinsically, the 
rules of equity are just as applicable in the one case as in the 
other.* 

'No general rule can be laid down as to what shall constitute 
undue influence. The question is one which must in each 
ease depend on its own particular circumstances. There is no 
head of equity more ditficult of application than the avoid- 
ance of a transaction on the ground of advantage taken of 

' Tnylor v. Obee, 3 Pri. 83; see Lord Kin2:sdoii\-n ; "Wj-se v. Lambert, 

Dnrley w. Singleton, Wififht. 25. If, Ir. Cli. 37'J ; Rhodes v. Bate, L. K. 1 

' Jb.; Butler v. Miller, L. 11. 1 Ir. Ch. App. 252. 
Eq. 215. * 7 il. L. 779, per Lord Kingsdown; 

* Ilu^ienin v. Basley, It Vc?. 273, see Casborne v. Barsham, 2 iJeav. 7G; 

286; Dent v. Bennett, 4 M. it C. 2t;0 ; Boj-se v. Rus.sborou<jli, 3 Jur. N. S. 

Cooke v. Lamotte, 15 Bcav. 234; Bill- 373; Beanland v. Bradley, 2 Sni. <k G. 

ago V. Southee, !• 11a. 534, 640; Wil- XVj; Harrison v. Guest, "o D. M. «t G. 

liams V. Bayley, L. H. 1 App. Ca. 2u0; 424 ; Rhodes v. Bate, 1 L. R. Ch. Ap. 

Smith V. Kay, 7 H. L. 750, 779, per 252; Lyon t-. Home, 16 W, li. 824. 



• McCormick r. Malin, 5 Blackf. TjOO ; Wilson r. Watts, 9 Md. 356; 
Dismukcs r. Terry, "Walk. 197. 



184 



I'KAl I> I'Kr.srMTD. 



distroRj;.' Tlu' case present-^ ii.» ditliculty wlu-ri' <lir('('t ri'straint, 
duress, or opprespitm cm l>e bhuwn.'' The ditlifulty ariscd 
when tlie court lias to dftfrniinc whether the advaiitaije taken 
of distress amounts to oppress!**!!,'* or tlie iiilluenee exerted 
has been so pressin«j; as to be undue witliin the rule of e<puty.* 
In a case wheix* tlie Imldei's of foim-d bills wni-ki!!«' on the 
fears of a father for the safety of his son, who had forced them, 
but without any distinct threat and without any distinct ])ro!n- 
ise not to prosecute, obtained from bim a security for the 
amount of the bills, tlie transaction was set aside.' In a case 
however wliere a debtor who was under arrest bad iriven to a 
creditor, at whose suit he was imprisoned, a warrant of at- 
torney to confess judijmcnt for the whole amount claimed, the 
court held that the aiTan^ement having been entered into de- 
liberately, with full knowledge of the circumstances and with 
professional advice, was not impeachable, although one of the 
debts for which the warrant of attorney was given was barred 



' Rnmshottom v. Parker, 6 Madd. (>. 

' M'.-liolls I'. NicholLs, 1 Atk. 4n'j; 
Koy I'. Duke of Beaufonl, 2 Atk. lyo; 
Thornhill i\ Evans, ib. ;m); Talli-yrand 
f. I5ijulan::;er, 'A Yes. 418; LaTi)|ilii;;li t'. 
Latnpluf;!!, 1 Ij'ick. 411; GubhiiH v. 
Cree.i, '2 Sell, it Lff. 211 ; UiuK-rliill v. 
Ilarwood. iD Ve!<. 2i;i; Pickett r. Loi;- 

(jan, 14 Vi's. 215; IVel v. , 10 Vt-rf. 

157 ; Middle-ton v. Middlt-ton, 1 J. «t W. 

yi. 

* Hamsbottom i-. Parker, 6 Mndd. P.. 

* Middl.t<in I'. Siierhiinif. 4 V. it C. 
380; IJovKo I'. liUssbi)rou;;li, 3 Jur. N. 
S. 373; UhodcH .-. ]{at<', L. U. 1 ("h. Ap. 
2.'2. 'Ibe rivil law alwavH Hffs aside a 
contract jirociirc-d by fi>rcf. nr frt.ui a 
uiini i.f lilu rty ill thu coutractiny jmrt}'. 



It was said in the Pandects that tiio 
j)arty must be intiinidateil by tlie aj)- 
jiieliension of some sirious evil of u 
jiresent or pressinjj nature, and sucli as 
is cai>ablc of making an im]ire!^siuu 
ujion a person of courace. I'otliier, 
however, tliinks this niTe to) strict, 
and tiiat re<^ard (-iKiiild be had to tho 
a-j^i', be.\, and cunditicm of the party, 
and that a fear whieii Wduid not bo 
deemed suHieient to iiave influence on a 
man in the prime of life, mi^^lit be sutli- 
cient in respect of a woman, or a man 
in the decline of life. Obi. p. 1, c. 1, 
art. :t. jj. 2, p. 25. 

' Williams r. Payley, L. K. 1 App. 
Ca. 2ii(); .see Nichi.Hs v. Meholls, 1 
Atk. 4uy ; Scott v. Scott, 1 1 Ir. Ltj. 74. 



♦ Butler r. Ilaskfll, 4 Dessuii. 051 ; Kenny r. Udall, 5 Johns. ( h. 4ni ; 
Rtcwurt t. Stewart, 7 J. .1. Mar«li. IHH; Lyon r. Tiiliuudjjc, 14 .lolins. mil ; 
Driver r. Torfiine, Ti I'ort. 0; Hoti^ih r. Hunt, 2 Ohio, 4:{r»; ICsbain r. 
I.aimir, 10 H. Mon. 4:{; C'mtrai Hank r. Cojxiand, IH Md. :!0.-) ; Ihmt r, 
]5n-S 2 Dev. E<|. l.'U2; Davin r. Mor;,'nn, 1 I)Mnji. 20 ; Tato r, AVliitncy, Har- 
rinK'a Cb. 145; Kelwy r. Iloldiy. 10 Pet. '*0'.». 



FIIATI) I'lUSlMI'I). 185 

by tlio Stfttuto of Limitations.* Tlio court is bound to examine 
carefully into a contrnct entered into ■svitli a ] aity who is in 
fijaol, and to see that no undue advanta^^e lias hcen taken (if his 
position. But it is not tnie, as a i^encral |.rinci|»lc, that a man 
in insolvent circumstances and in 2)nbun can nut >ell hi.s i»r(i|>- 
erty.^ 

In cliariiiiii; a jury, with respect to what sliall constitute 
undue inlhienee in the jnakin^ of a will, Mr. Justice AVilde 
said as follows, in a very late case : ' * " To make a ^'ood will a 
man must be a free agent, but all influences are not unlawful. 
Persuasion appeals to the affections, or ties of kindred, to a 
sentiment of gratitude for past services or pity for future desti- 
tution or the like. These are all legitimate and may be fairly 
pressed on a testator. On the other hand, pressure of what- 
ever character, Avhether acting on the fears or the hopes, if so 
exerted as to ovei-jDower the volition without convincing the 
judgment, is a species of restraint under which no valid will 
can be made. Importunity or threats such as the testator has 
not the courage to resist ; moral command asserted and yielded 
for the sake of peace and <|uict, or of escaping from distress of 
mind or social discomfort ; these, if carried to a degree in 
which the free play of the testator's judgment, discretion, or 
•wishes is overborne, will constitute undue influence, though no 
force is either used or threatened. In a word a testator may 
be led, not driven, and his will must be the ofl:spring of his 
own volition and not that of another."* 

' Richnrds ?•. Curlowis, 3 Eq. Rep. " Brinkley t». Ilnnn, 1 Dru. 115; se 

278; see llinton t>. Hinton, 2 Yes. 634; Tarker v. Cl:irkc, 3 > Beav. fi4. 

Roy t: Duke of Ik-aiifort, 2 Atk. 11(3 ; ' Hall v. II ill, 18 L. T. N. S. IfiS; 37 

Knight r. Marjoribanks. 11 Heav. 322, 2 L. J. Ch. 21 ; L. R. I'r. A ])iv. 4.s2. 

Mac. A G. lu; Scott v. Scott, 11 Ir. * See Farreut v. Biauchlord, 1 D.J. 

Eq. 74; comp. Fulkner v. O'Brien, 2 «t S. 121. 
Ba. <fc Be. 220; Wilkinsou v. Stafford, 1 
Ves. Jr. 43. 



* Davis r. Calvert, 5 G & J. 269 ; Gardiner r. Gardiner, 31 X. Y. lo5 ; 

13 



ISC rnAri) riir.srMED. 

Mere inadequacy of consideration or inequality in a barj^ain 
is iu»t a i:ri>uiid to set aside a transaeti»>n, it" tlu* ]t:irties were 
on e<iual terms and in a situation to jndi^e tor themselves, and 
]>ert"orme<l the act wittingly and willini^ly.'* !Mero inade- 

' Gnrtsido v. Ishcrwood, I Hro. C. C. Mndd. 409 ; Wowl i>. Abrey, 8 Mndd 

05'.»; (irirtith r. Spriitlcy. 1 Cox. 3S3; 417; MiTi-didi r. Snnnder.H, '2 Ih.w. 

Collier v. Brown. if> 4J8; Fox r. Mii- MJ ; Curz >n r. Il.hvortliv. 3 H. L. 712; 

crptli, 2 Cox, :i22 , Murray r. rainier. 2 llarrisMn t'. Guest, D. M. iL U. 434, b 

Sell, ik Ix-f. 488; Copis r. Middlcton, 2 11. L. 4sl, 



TyUr r. Gardiner, 35 N. Y. 559 ; Turner v. Cheesomnn, 2 McCarter, 243; 
Moore r Blauvelt, 2 McCarter, 307 ; Hall r. Hall, 3S Ala. 131. 

» Butler r. Haskell, 4 Dessau. G51; Eyre r. Potter. 15 How. 42 ; Barei- 
beau r. Brant, 17 How. 43; Farnam v. Brooks, 9 Pick. 212; Steele r. 
Worthinirt«)n, 2 Ohio, 352 ; "Wintermuto r. Snyder, 2 Green's Ch. 489; 
Bedel r. Loomis. 11 N. H. 9; Cubbins v. Markwood, 13 Gratt. 495 ; Erwin 
r. Parham. 12 How. 197. 

It lias l)een left, perlmps, wisely, to the exppriencc of the courts of 
justice to apply the jjreat principles of equity to each case according to 
its particular circumstances, and thus gradually to foiin a practical sys- 
tem of i)ure justice. And the courts have never decided, as a Imiad prin- 
ciple, that mere inadequacy of price, unconnected with direct fraud or im- 
position, or concealment, or advantage taken of extreme weakness or 
great necessity, should be a distinct and inilependent ground for vitiating 
contracts. But the courts have said that the inadequacy may be so gross 
as to furnish strong and even conclusive presumption of fraud, and that 
is the way the grossness or inadequacy may avoid the sale. Wherever the 
courts j)erceive that a sale of property has been nuule at a gro.>isly inade- 
quate price such as would shock a correct mind, this ina<l(quacy furnishes 
a strong and in general a conclusive jiresumption, though there is no 
direct proof of fraud, that an undue advantage has been taken of the 
ignorance, the weakness, or the necessity and distress of tiie vendor; and 
this injposes upon the purchaser the necessity to remove this violent pre- 
sumption by the clearest evidence of the fainiess of his conduct. The re- 
lief is cxtentleil not oidy to young heirs selling their expectancies, itut to 
oil who are weak, or necessitous, or not ' perfectly conusant of their 
rights, whether selling expectancies or absolute estates, more {'specially 
where tlic purchaser is very intelligent and acute, and avails himself of 
his superiority in an unniiMinablo manner. Butler r. Haskell, 4 Dessau. 
051. 

When the smallness of tin- jtriee is due to tlu; fault of the vendor, the 
3u\c U valid. Forde r. Herron, l .Munf. 31(1. 

The inadequacy of the price given at the sale of land for unpaid taxetj 



FRAUD PRESUMED. 



]S< 



quaoy of coniiitloration is not a <,'r(»un(l lor refiisin;^ gpecific pt-r- 
fonnaiice of an uiiexeeiited contract, and Htill lu8.s can it l)o 
gronnd for roscindini; an executed contract.' But inadequacy 
of consideratinii, if it !»(• ofso fjross a iiatiin- as to amount in it- 
self to conclusive and decisive evidence of fraud, is a ground 
for cancclini^ a transaction. In such cases the relief is granted 
not on the ground of the inadequacy of consideration, but on 
the ground of fraud as evidenced thereby.''* In determining 



•Collier v. Rrown, 1 Cox, 428; Coles 
f. Trccotliick, it Vcs. 24t". , Callus lian c. 
Calltt-hnn. K CI. .t Fin. -lol ; ]5,,\V(.r v. 
Cooper, 2 Hn. 408; BoruU i'. Dan:), //>. 
450, per 'Wiu'ram, V.-C. ; Abbott v. 
Sworder, 4 Dcg. & Sin. 450 ; comp. 
Bnrnartiiston v. Linijood, 2 Atk. i:j4; 
Falckc V. Gray, 4 Drew. (".51. There 
was till very recently a well recojjnized 
distinetion Ix-tween sales of estates ia 
possession and estates in reversion. 
rhe sale of an estate in reversion, if 
effected by private contract, was liable 
to be set aside at any time afterwards 
for mere inadequacy of consideration, 
and the onus proliandi did not, as in 
ordinary cases, rest with the plaintiff 
seekini; to innieacii tlie rule, but wi;h 
the defendant uphoKlino^ it. Davis v. 
Duke of Marlbor<ju;,'h, 2 Sw. 151 ; Gow- 
land V. ])e Faria, 17 Ves. 20; Earl of 
Aldborough v. Trye, 7 CI. <fe Fin. 450; 
Edwards v. Burt, 2 D. M. A f J. 55 ; 
Lromley v. Smith, 20 Bea'v. 644 ; Talbot 



»'. .«;tanif()rth, I .1. ,fc li. 4S.|. But it 
has been enacted by 31 Vict. c. 4 that 
no i)ur(h:ise made honn ji'lr, and with- 
out fraud or unfair dealiiii;, of nnv 
reversionary interest in real or personal 
estate, shall be hereafter opened or set 
aside merely on the ground of under- 
value. 

'Gwj-nne r. Heaton, 1 Bro. C. C. 9; 
Gartside v. Isherwood, ib. 559; lleath- 
coate V. Taii^non, 2 Bro. C. (-. 17:!; 
Evans i'. Llewellin, 1 Co.\, .S:5 i ; Gibsiii 
V. Jeyes, Ves. 200, 273 ; Underbill c. 
Ilorwood, 10 Ves. 209, 219; Mors.' -. 
Itoyal, 12 Ves. 373 ; "Wood - . Abrey, :; 
Ma'dd. 417; l^lakeney i-. Ba2:?ott, I 
Dow <t CI. 405; Stil'hvell v. W.lkins, 
Jac. 2K2; Burell v. Dann, 2 Ila. 44'», 
450; Itice '•. Gordon, II Beav. 205; 
Coekell <•. Taylor. 15 Beav. lo3, 115; 
Fakke v. Gray, 4 Drew. 051 ; ."^unimers 
V. Griffiths, 35 Beav. 27; Butler v. 
Miller, L. li. 1 Ir. Eq. 210. 



tlicrcon floes not constitute a valid objection to the sale. Slater r. Mas- 
well, 6 Wall. 268. 

* Butler r. Haskell, 4 Dessau. 651 ; McCormick r. Malin, 5 Blackf 509; 
Eyre v. Potter, 15 IIow. 43; Veazie r. Williams, 8 IIow. i:J4: Wrii,'ht r. 
Stannard, 2 Brock. 313 ; Green r. Tlioni])son, 2 Ircd. Eq. 365 ; Xownian v. 
Meek, 1 Freeman's Cb. 441 ; White v. Flora, 2 Overton, 426; Ilarilcman v. 
Berge, 10 Ycrg. 202 ; Knohb r. Lindsay, 5 Ohio, 468 ; Osgood r. Franklin, 
2 Johns. Ch. 1 ; Stubblcfield r. Patterson, 3 Iley. 128 ; Jouzin r. Toulmin, 
9 Ala. 662 ; Baker v. Howell, 4 Johns. Ch. 118. 

The qualitication to the rule implies necessarily the affirmation that if 
the inadequacy be of a nature so gross as to shock the conscience, it will 
amount to proof of fraud. Byers r. Surget. 19 How. 303; Wright r. Wil- 
son, 2 Yerg. 294 ; Barnett v. Spratt, 4 Ired. Eq. 171 ; Deaderick r. Watkius, 



ISJ^ iKAiii i'i;r>rMi:r». 

whether the consideration is or is not atU'c^nate, it must always 
be renuMiihered that thi-re are lancy prices n<»t reirulati-il by 
intrinsic vahie.^ 

lU" the civil law a sale for one lialf the value nii^ht he (?ct 
aside lor inadeijuacv,' It' the j»riie i;iven was leas than une- 

' Abbott t', Sworder. 4 Dcg. it Sm. " N<.tt r. Hill. 2 C'h. Ca. 1*20; /kt 

45ft. Lord Nottiiii^liiuii ; How r. '\Velili>n, 2 



8 liumph. 020; Morris v. Philibcr, 80 Mo. 145; Ilurdcmau r. Burgp, 10 
YcriJ. 202. 

In:uU'(|Uacy of price witliin itself, anil disjconncctcd from all otlicr 
facts, can not he a frrouml for settinj^ aside a contract, or alfordini; relief 
ajjainst it. "What this somethiiif; liesiiles iiia(Iet|uaey .should be. i)erli:ips 
no eourt ought to sjiy, lest the euuning and the wary, by employing other 
means than those named, should e.scapc with their fraixUilent gains. It 
ought, however, in connection with the inadequacy of consideration, to 
induce the Ix'lief that there has been cither a .suppression of the truth, the 
suggestion of falsehood, j-.buse of confidence, or violation of duty arising 
out of gome fiduciary relation between the jjarties, the exercise of undue 
iniluence, or the taking of an unjust or inequitable advantage of one 
whose peculiar situation at the time would be calculated to render him an 
easy prey for the cunning and artful. But if no one of these appear, or if 
no fact is proved, that will lead the mind to the conclusion that the parly 
against whom relief is sought has sui)pressed some faet that he ought to 
have disclosed, or that he has suggested some false-hood, or abused in 
some manner the confidence reposed in him, or that some lidueiary rela- 
tion existed l)etween the jjarties, or that the party complaining was under 
Lis influence, or at the time of the transaction was in a c(mditi(m, fn)m 
any cau.se, an easy victim to the unconseieutious, then relief can not be 
ufi^urdi-d. Judge- r. W ilk ins, 1!» Ala. 705. 

Whenever equity interferes with a contract, or refuses its aid to carry 
it into execution for inadefpiaey of con>idiralion, it is on the ground of 
fraud which must either be clearly pn)ved, or result irresistibly at the 
first view, and without calculation from the grossncss of the dispr.rity. 
Steele r. Worthington, 2 Ohio, Ur)2; Ilar.leman r. Hurgo, 10 Yerg. 202. 

An entire lailure of consideration by the receipt of what is a mere 
bubble, may Ik; the ground for rescinding u contract. Warner r. Daniels, 
1 Wood, ii Min. DO. 

The fact that the Kale wiw made under judicial process weakens, but 
docs not nl)8olutely remove the ])re.sumpti()n of fraud arising from great 
inadequacy. Bycrs r, Surget. 10 How. !30:j ; h. c. 1 Ilemj). 715. 

Inadequacy of price is no ground for setting aside a sale at auction. 
Kcwman c. Meek, 1 rp-'iu. Ch. 441 ; llaiuLij c. Co.dcs, 1 Dcv. Eq. 420. 



ntAlI) PKHSIMI-.l). 189 

lialf the value, the iiiciiualify was (IcciikmI l.y tlio civil law 
l<rst<) and rrlifl' wa> allonlcd. Tlicrc i- liMwcvcr ii<. nih- in 
our ('Wii law as to what ilitlbrenco between the real value ot* 
property and the consideration i^dvcn constitnteft inadecpiacy of 
price. This the judi^^e must decide.^* In most caseH, liowever, 
perhaps a sale at half jtricc might he sutlicicnl, to induce the 
court to set aside a transaction, if there is no i::round ior >\\'j:- 
gesting that bounty was intended.^ AVhen bounty is intende<J, 
there is no room for the inference of fraud from the inadequacy 
of the price; love and aifection will alone support the convey- 
ance without any pecuniary consideration, and will e«jually 
suiii).)rt it wliere there is a pecuniary consideration wholly 
inade«piate to the value of the property.^ 

The f\ict that a transaction may have been improvident or 
precipitate, or may have been entered into without inde- 
pendent professional advice, is as immaterial as mere inade- 
quacy of consideration, if the i^irties were on equal terms and 
in a situation to act and judge for themselves, and fully under- 
stood the nature of the transaction, and no evidence can be 
adduced of the exercise of undue influence or oppression.* f 
But inadequacy of consideration or the absence of independent 
professional advice becomes a most material circumstance 
where one of the parties to a transaction is from age, igno- 
rance, distress, incapacity, weakness of mind, body, or dis- 

Ves. 616; Day »-. Newiinn. 2 Cox. 80; * Wlialley /■. Wlialley. 1 Mor. 440,. 

Burrowos v. Lock, 10 Vcs. 474, per Sir * Mertilith >: Saumlcrs, 2 I)c,w. 514 ; 

W Grant Blackit- ?■. Clark, 1') IJeav. 6'.i.'> ; Harri- 

' See Nott ,'. Hill, 2 Cli. Ca. 120; son v. Guest, I). M. ^ G. 434. 8 II. L. 

Butler .'. MilliT. L. K. 1 Ir. Eq. r.i4; 4S1 ; Denton ,<. Douner, 23 Beav. 2'.']; 

but see 2 Madd. 421 n. Tokcr v. Toker, 31 Beav. 629, 32 L J. 

" Butler V. Miller, L. K. 1 Ir. Eq. Ch. 322. 
194. 



♦ Butler V. Haskell, 4 Dessau. 051 ; Wild r. Rees 48 111. 428; "Wcster- 
vclt V. Matheson, 1 Iloff. Cb. 37. 

t Green r. Thompson, 2 Ircd. Eq. oGo ; Dunn c. Cliiiuil»ers, 4 B:ul>. 37C; 
Jouzin r. Toulmin, U Ala. CG2. 



VM 



rii.M i> ri;i:srMi:i). 



position, or rroiii liunilili' position or ollici* clrcunistanccs, 
unable to protrct liiin>c'lt. In nil sufli casis, whatever he tho 
nature of the transaction, the o/nt.'< of proof re^ts on the party 
wlio seeks to uj^hohl it to sliow tliat the otlicr ])orfornie(l tlio 
act or entered into the transaction vohiutarily and delib- 
erately, knowing its nature and iH'cct, and tliat his consent 
to perforin the act or become a party to tlic transaction was 
not obtained by reason of any undue advantaije taken of his 
position or of any undue influence exerted over him.'* Tho 
mere fact, however, that one of the parties may be an illiterate 
person or a man of advanced age, or may be in bad health, or 
in distress, or j)ecnniarv embarrassment, will not vitiate a trans- 
action, even although it rnay have been founded on an inadequate 
consideration, and no independent advice may have been had, 
if it api>ear on the face of the evidence that he was fully com- 
petent to form an independent judgment in the matter, and 
became a party to the transaction deliberately and advisedly, 
knowing its nature and etiect. The onus rests on the party 



' Ardglosso V. Jrn-=c)inmp, 1 Vorn. 
236; Clarkson v. Ilanwuy. 2 P. Wins. 
203; Proof r. llines, Forrest, 111; How 
f. Weldon, 2 Ves. fiKi; Gartsiile v. 
l-herwKoJ, 1 Hro. C C. .'>.')'.•; Evaii.s c 
Lli'Wi-llin, 1 ("ox, '.V.i'.i; Murray '• Palin- 
••r, 2 Sell, ik Lff. 4S»); Morst' r. Kovul, 
12 Ves. 873; Pickett v. Lo^jpnn,' U 
Vea. 231 ; Falkner r. O'lirieiii 2 15a. A 
Bo. 22<»; Griftitli r. Uobbins, ;{ Ma<l(l. 
I'M; \V(M>il ,■. Abrev, //<. 417; Willaii •: 
Willan. 2 Dow. 271'; Collins i<. liar.', 2 
IJli:,'li'!4 N. S.lnr. ; .M'Di.irmiil >■. M'l)iar 
iiiid. 3 l{li:^l!'« .N. S. :s71; Williains /■. 
tiiiiilb, 7 L. J. Cli. 12'J; liowcix v. Kir- 



wan, LI. it O. 47 ; Dent i-*Bennctt, 4 M. 
ifc C. 273; Aliearnc t*. Hoi;an, l»ru. 31U; 
CJarvcy r. M'Minn, 9 Ir. tlq. 520; Gib- 
son V. Uussell. 2 Y. <fe C. C. C. 104; 
yturi^e I'. Stur;c<', 1'- Heav. 244 ; Cockeil 
I'. Taylor, 1.') JJeav. lir»; (.'ooke v. La- 
iMolte, ('/'. 234 ; Lougniutu r. Leil;;er, 2 
(iiir. ir)7; Grosvenor v. Sherratt, 23 
Hoav. li.'.'.t; Smith c. Kay, 7 II. L. IM; 
I'litliaux I'. LoiiJitlale, 1 D. J. A- (J. 433; 
Simiiiier.'i »'. Griflitli, 3.'i Heiv. 27; 
Klioiles v. Hate. L. It. 1 Cli. Apj). 2^2; 
Tate r, William.ioM, L. K. 2 Oh. App. 
05. 



♦ Ncely r. Andcnwn, 2 Strobh. Eq. 202; MiuMo.x r. Siinmons, 31 Gca 
r»12; Wormark r. Hoj:tp*, U Geo. CO; Minn r. IJittirly, 21 Vt. ;J2(J ; 
IIoImcH r. Frc^h, St Mo. 201 ; (tcor};c r. Hicli;ir(ls<in, Gilincr, 2;ji»; Iluwlry 
r. Cramer, 4 Cow. 717; HjiII r. I'crkiii'*, ;J Wci.il. (i2<i; Howanl r. Kdvill, 
17 Vt. ft; jlolrjcn r. Cruwlurd, 1 Aik. yi»"i; Milviiiiu'v r. rinckard, 2 
Lcit?h, 1 lU : T'xl.l c. (Jrovo, 33 31!. lai. 



FRAUD ri;i:srMi:i). TJl 

impcacliiiii,^ tlic ti-aiisaclinu lo sliow that (•(»ei-cir)ii was used or 
iiiidiM; iuliiiciicc was cxcrcMHcd.' Tlicrc can Ik; ik* title t<j 
relit't'on tlie ground of advantage takt'ii of distress wlieru the 
advantage or disadvaDtaije of the transaction is to be the 
result of I'litiire contingencies, and is not within the view of 
the parties at the time.*" 

A mere lalse statement of tlie eonsidei'alion does not oi' 
itself necessarily vitiate a tleed,'^ but there may bo cases wliere 
a false statement of the consideration may of itself destroy tlic 
whole transaction.* Tlie i^eneral rule is that, where no eon- 
sideratiiui is expressed in a deed, a jiarty may aver and prove 
consideration in siijiport of it, and, where a consideration is 
expressed, a man may still aver other considerations not incon- 
sistent tlierewith.* Ayiiere, however, the consideration ex- 
pressed in a deed is impeadied on the ground of fraud, the 
])arty cLaiming nnder the deed cannot aver in its support con- 
siderations dilferent from that expressed.® If the transaction 
on which a deed purports to be founded and the consideration 
for wliich it was executed, appear to be untruly stated, the 
instrument may, if the nntruth would operate fraudulently, 
lose all its binding quality in eijuity even though it be con- 
clusive at law,' If a deed states on its face a pecuniary 
consideration, a party cannot, if it be impeached, set up con- 

• Lewis V. Pead. 1 Yes. Jr. 19; ' Bowcn r. Kirwan, LI. »t. G. 47. 

Lcvm V. Homo, 10 W. R. 82 1; M'Xcill * lb. li]>hi<xUm v. l;ull.-n, 2 Dr. & 

V. ratiill, 2 Bli^rh, 22S ; I'latt r. Karker, War. 181; Gibsou v. ILussclI, 2 Y. it C. 

1 Sim. 1; liuiiter v. Atkins, a M. it K. C. C. 1(>4. 

l\:i; Purdie v. Millctt, Taiiil. ;n ; liicli- " llartopp v. Ilartojip, 17 Ves. 192; 

arils V. Cuilowis, 3 Yli[. Kt'ii. 278; Cur- Cliflford >: 'lurifU, 1 Y. «V: C. C. C. 138. 

zon c. Bi-lwurtliy, 3 II. L. 712 ; Il.iiri- alVd. 14 L. .1. Cli. 39; rsi.xon v. llnmil- 

80U I'. Guest, i). M. it G. 431, 8 H. L. ton, 2 Dr. tfc Wal. 387, and cases cit. 2 

481 ; sec Ilovcnden c Lord Aiiiier*ley, 2 P. Wms. 2t)4. 

Scb. <fe Lef. 607, 039; Price v. Price. I * Clarkson v. Ilanwav. 2 P. Wms. 

D. M. <fe G. 308; but see Cooke v. La- 203; Brid^'inan v. (Jrccn, 2 Ves. 027; 

mottc, 15 Bcav. 234. Comp. Murray v. Watt /•. Grove. 2 Scb. A Lef. 501 ; U il- 

Palmer, 2 Scb. «fc Lef. 48G. Ian v. Willaii, 2 Dow. 274. 

' Ramsbottom v. Parker, 6 Madd. 6. ' Watt v. Grove, 2 Scii. it Lef 604. 



• Farnam r. P>rooks, 9 Pick. 'Jli ; AVhitc v. Flora, 2 Ovtrtoii, 426. 



192 rii.M 1) ru!. SI Mi:i). 

piilcmtions of MikkI or natural lovo ami alVi'ctioii.' Where, 
howovor, tlic roiitals stated a ]»c'ruiiiary coiisidcTatioii as the 
louiidatidii of a (U't'tl, aiul, in the (»|i(.'rativc' i»art, love and 
aH'eetion wire intnxlueed as bein<; partly the consideration on 
whieh the Avvi\ was I'ouiidcd, the cinirt would net, iVoiii thitj 
eircunistanee alone, presume Irautl.^ 

In dealinj::s between parties, one of whom is subject to the 
inlluence of the other, there must be U])on the face of the deed 
itself a fair and correet statement of the tran^actiun. If the 
statement as to the consideration is not true, the transaction 
cannot be sujiported. A consideration ])artly of the consitlera- 
tion stated in the deetl and jtartly of something else, is not 
consistent with the consideration stated on the face of the 
deed. It is not open to the i»arty who seeks to uphold it to 
jrive sucli evidence to sustain the deeil.^ 

The statement of consideration Mhere there was in fact 
none, or the untrue statement of the consideration or other 
circumstances of a suspicious nature, nuiy be sullicient to shitl 
the burthen of proof from the i)arty impeaching a deed u^kju 
the party upholding it.^ 

The jurisdiction of the court in relieving against transac- 
tions on the ground of undue influence has been exercised as 
between a medical man and a patient ;° as between the kee])er 
of a lunatic asylum an<l a patient under his care;" as between 
a minister of religion and a person under his si)iritual inlhi- 



' Cln'-k'son v. Iliunviiv, 2 P. Wins. rison v. Guest, G 1). M. ik (}. 431, 8 II. 

203; Willuii r. Williiii, J Dow. 2S2. L. 4H1. 

* niriur I'. <;<>tf. 4 IJro. P. 0. 230; » Hent v. Bonnett. 4 M. A C. 2fl9; 
Whallcy »'. Whiill<y, :i Hliirli, 13. Atu'iinio v. llo^nn. Dm. 310; (Tib-ion r. 

» AricnriK- I. ll<i:ran. Dm. 310; Uj». UuHwell, 2 Y. A V. (". f. Inj; Pc.a<«)ck r. 

].inL'1'<ii r. Uullcn. 2 l»r. A: War. 1S4; K.-niot. H L. T. 2y2; Allen v. Davis, 4 

I lillor.! V. Turnlj, 1 Y. ct ('. {". C. Do;;, it Sni. 133; llilin-i- i-. Soutiioe, U 

13b; GibM)D v. UuitwU, 2 Y. tt C. C, C. lia. 510. See Pnitl r. i'lirker, 4 Kuhs. 

104. r>i»7; l'i)|)liain v. Krxokc, .'> Uu.ti. tt; 

* W'ntt r. fJroVf, 2 Srh. A I>-f. 4'.»2. Blarkic r. Clurke, 1.') Ikav. :,'X> ; l-arler 
r.02; (;riftithH v. Uol.hinn. 3 Mo<l(l. I'.tl ; v. Laiw. 2Vi L. T. 2. 

(Jibm.n I. UnsH.il. 2 Y. & C. V. <". HM; • Wriglil v. ProUil, 13 Yea. 186. 

Aliearoo v. I logon, Dm. 3lo. See liar- 



rKAii) I'KDsi :mi:i). 



V.y.l 



dice;* as l)ct\vcoii a spiritualist iiiciliuin ami an old laily;^ 
as Ijt'twt'i'M a vi'iiiiLC niaii in tlii' aiiiiv, just eomc of a<^e, 
and liis sujicrior ((lliccr ;^ as between husbaml and wife;* as 
lietwceii a man and a lady to wlioiii he was about to be mar- 
ried;' as between a man and a woman with whom he was 
living;" as between brotlicr and sister;' as ;)etween two 
brothers ; ^ as between an (.'Idcr ami a youiiL^a-r brother just come 
of age;® as between two sisters;'" as between an uncle and 
liis nephew," who was deaf and dundj;'^ as between an uncle, 
M'ho was in such a state of bodily and mental imbecility as 
rendered him incapable of transacting business requiring de- 
liberation and reflection, and a nephew ;^^ as between nephew 
and aunt," or aunt and niece; '^ as between a young man just 
come of age and a man who had acquired an influence over 
him during his minority;^" as between a young man of intem- 
perate habits and a person with w]i nn he was living;" as 
between an nnniarrle 1 woman and lier brother-in-law;'^ as 
between an old lady and a woman living with her in the 



' Norton i-. Kelly, 2 Eden, 2Rr, ; 
Hugueiiin >: Unsli-y, 14 Vcs. '273; Mid- 
dletoQ V. SIum' urne, 4 Y. ifc C. So8; 
Whyte V. McaJe, 2 Ir. Kq. 420; Nut- 
tidge t'. Priiiee, 2 Gill". 21o. Comp. 
Kirwan v. I iillen, 4 Ir. ( li. 322; re 
Metcalfe, 2 1). J. <fc S. 122. «ee also 
Tliompson c. Ilefternan, 4 Dr. <fe War. 
2SC. 

'' Lvon V. Home, 16 W. R. 821. 

' Lloyil V. Clarke. « Ei-av. 3< i9. 

* Lambert i'. Lambert, 2 Lro. P. C. 

18 ; Peel 1'. , 10 Yes. 157; Price i'. 

I'rice, 1 1). M. & G. 3(>8 ; Boyse v. 
Iviissborouirb, 3 Jur. 373 ; Proctor v. 
Robinson, 3.'> Bcav. 335. See Xedby r. 
Nedbv, 5 Deg. ik S. 377 ; Coulsoa v. Al- 
lison,"2 D. F. A J. 521. 

* Page I'. Ilorne, 1 1 Beav. 227, 235 
Cobbctt I'. Brock, 20 Beav. 525. 

'Coulson f. Allison, 2 D. F. it J. 
r>21. See Fanner r. Farmer, 1 II. L. 
724 ; Garvey i'. M'ilinu, it Ir. Eq. 520. 

' Sharp V. Leach, 31 Beav. 4'Jl. 



Sturge t'. Sturge, 12 Beav. 229, 
Scrcomc v. Saunders, 34 Beav. 



382. 



'" Harvey v. Mount, 8 Beav. 439. 

" Tato V. Williamson, L. R. 2 Ch. 
App. 55. 

" Ferrcs v. Ferres, 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 
605. Comp. F'armer v. Farmer, 1 H. 
L. 724; Yickers v. Bdl, 9 L. T. N. S. 
600. 

" Willan V. "Willan, 2 D..w. 274. 

" Grifliths v. Robbing, 3 Madd. 101 ; 
Cooke V. Lamotte, 15 Bcav. 241. See 
Pratt V. Barker, 1 Sim. 1, 4 L. J. Cli. 
149; Wliallev v. Wiiallev, 3 Bligli, 1 ; 
T(.ker v. Toker, 31 Beav' 629, 32 L. J. 
Ch. 322. 

" Anderson v. Ellsworth, 3 Gift 154. 

'" Grosvenor v. Sherratt, 28 Beav. 
601; Smith i: Kay, 7 H. L. 750. See 
Aylwnrd i-. Kearney, 2 B. .t B. 40.8. 

" Terry r. Wacher, 15 Sim. 447. 

'■" Rhodes v. Bate, L. R. 1 Ch. Ap. 
252. 



191 



ru.M i> ruKsiMr.D. 



ca]>acity of n companion or domestic; ^ as between a cliiUl niul 
an imlKH-ilc paivnt ;' and in otlicr auses.' 

The prini'iple npon wliidi the court sets a.-^ido traiu<aetions 
on tlie gnnind ot undue inlhieneo only apjilies to cases wliere 
gome hiwf'ul rebition has been constituted between the par- 
tics.* Where, accordini^ly, a woman, wliile livinj;^ in adultery 
with a married man, assii^ned certain proi)crty to secure a 
debt which lie owed, the court would not, from the mere 
existence of the relation ])resume undue influence, the woman 
being of mature intelligence, and the transaction having been 
entered into deliberately.' 

Transactions even between mortgagor and mortgagee are 
looked on with jealousy where a mortgagor in embarrassed 
circumstances, and under pressure, sells the e<piity of redemi>- 
tion to the mortgagee for a lium considerably less than its 
value. •• 

In the api^lication of the principles of the court, there is 
no distinction between the case of one who himself exercises 
a direct influence, or of another who makes himself a party 
with the person who exercises the undue influence.' 



' Colo V. Olbson, 1 Ves. 503 ; Bate 
r. Bnnk of Kii'.;lninl, '.• Jur. .'(15 

* Wli.laii r. Wlii-luii, :{("(>w.(Amc>r.), 
B3S. See Uaniner r. Kanliier, '11 Wiiul. 
(Aincr.V t'oni]). Ik-uiiluiid r. Bradliy, 
2 Sm. A (i. :!:!'.». 

» Ilrooks f. (jiilly. 2 Atk. 81; lUWv. 
Howard, 'J Mod. :i<)2; Osinoiid i'. Fitz- 
roy, 3 I'. W. l'.J'.t; How i-. Weldon. 2 
Ve«. M'''-, KvaiiH v. Llewellin. I Cox, 
8;J3; Wood V. Abrey. :» .Miidil. 117; 
IlmlHon r. Heiiiuhiirini. cH. H lilii;h, IH; 
Collins V. Unrv. 2 lHi;,'li'H N. S. luti; 
M'I'iarmid v. .M'Diurmid. :» Hiii^'h'rtN. S, 
S174; Aylward v. Kearney, 2 15. A IJ. 



477 ; P'Arcy v. D'Arcy, Tlav «t J. 115 ; 
Loiiijiiinte r. I/tlijer, 2 (Jill. I'i7; Cus- 
taiice t'. Cminiii^iiam. lU Heav. SG'A; 
Itoui^las V. Cidverwcll, lil L. J. Cl>. 
.M:{ ; Clark v. Malj.as, if>. G'.'O; Hakor v. 
Monk. 1(1 Jur. N. S. ti'.H ; rrideaiix v. 
l.onsdnle, 1 I>. J. d: S. 4:U»; Williams i-, 
Kaiiliv. L. K. 1 Apji. Ca. 200; Tutor. 
Willi uiison. L. U. 1 Kq. r.2S. 

* Ilarjjreave v. Everard, « Ir.Cli. 27S. 
' //.. 

• I'ord V. Olden, I,. R. 3 K.). KU. Seo 
W.l.li V. Uorke. 2 S.h. A Lcf. 601 ; 
lli.kes r. C..oke. 4 Dow. li'.. 

' Ard;,'la.H-so f. Tilt, 1 Vern. 238; 



* Banfjlicr r. Merryman. ?,2 Md. IH.*;; Shorkoll r. Ilopkins, 2 Mtl. ("h. 
90; Doiigliirty r. M< ('<d;;;in, <> (}. iV J. 21'} ; Thofiipsoii i. Lcc, 2 ^Vla. 292; 
Conway r. Alt'xan<ler, 7 Cruiu li, 21H. 



FRAUD UPON TIIIKI* I'AiniHS. I'J.") 

The (lillk'ulty nl' dcliiiin^ tliu [nnnt ut which iiillueiu-e ex- 
erted over the mind of a testator becomes so pressing as to 
l)e |in'iKily described as coercion is <;reatly eidianced wlien 
the (luestion is one between Imshaml and wife.* The i)re- 
Bumption of unihie inlbience exercised l)y a liusband over a 
feeble dyinj:; wife is however far stroni^er than wlien a simihir 
cliari^e is made against a wife in respect of her deceased hus- 
band.'^ 

AV'iiethcr a transaction can be set aside on the ground of 
undue influence, where the influence luis been exercised not 
by tlie party obtaining tlie benefit, but by a third person, 
appears to be doubtful." 



SECTION IV.-FRAUD UfON THIRD PARTIES. 

Another class of frauds against wliich relief may be liac 
in e<[nity is wliere a contract or other act is substantially a 
fraud upon the rights, interests, or intentions of third parties. 
The general rule is that particular persons in contracts and 
other acts shall not only transact ho7id fide between them- 
eelves, but shall not transact mala fide in respect to other 
persons who stand in such a relation to either as to be affected 
by the contract or the consequences of it.* Collusion between 
two persons to the prejudice or loss of a third is in the eye ol 
the court the same as a fraud.' 



Esppy ». Lak-p, 10 Ila. 2(>0 ; Wyse «. 'Clarke v. Sawyer, 3 Sandf. (Amcr.) 

Lambert, 16 Ir. Cli. 379, supra, p. 152. 357. 

' Boysc t'. Kussboroufjli. 3 Jur. N. S. ' Bentley v. Mackay. 31 Beav. 143. 

373. 377. See Price i'. Price, 1 D. M. See Wycberley v. Wychcrley, 2 Eden, 

& G. 3(t8; Gardner v. Gardner, 22 175. 

>Vend. (Amer.) 52t); Clarke ?•. Sawyer, *2 Ves. 156, 157, per Lord Hard- 

3 Siindf. (AnuT.) 351. Comp. Middle- .wicke; Wallis v. Duke of Portland, 3 

ton V. Middktou, IJ. «k W. »Jl. Vcs. 5o2. ' 

' Garth v. Cotton, 1 Dick. 217. 



IDG FRATI) T-r(1X Tllini) TAIITIKS. 



ru.M I) I TON ( i:i:i)iTon3. 

A class of iVaiuls ' oomiii:; iimlcr tlio lu-nd (»f fraud upon 
third ])artit's cinbracos all those agreements or other acts of 
])arties which tend to delay, deceive, or defraud creditors. 
Transactions of the sort are void at common law,'' * hut tho 

' Pope I'. Wilson. 7 Ala. f.90. Topis i-. Mid.llt'lon, 2 MmUl. -IJ-S; Bor- 

* Cudognn v. Kcnnet, Cowp. 432; ton v. Vanlieythuyscn, 11 llix. 132. 



♦ Tho statute must be nccivrd as n true nnd nccunitp declaration of 
what tluToiuiuon law was. Clark r. Douixlass, 02 IViin. 40H. 

A debtor lias tlio rijrht to pay liis debt to an insolvent creditor in 
order to defeat an attachment which he knows is al)out to be laid in his 
liands, and the court will not inquire into the motive which prompted its 
jiaymcnt. Simpson r. Dall, 3 Wall. 4(51 ; Chamberlain r. Pilisl)ury, IJo Vt. 10. 

A conveyance by a Jcmme tu>lc on the eve of niarriau'c is not Iraudident 
airainst her lui^lc.nd's creditors. Prior r. Kinney, Miinf. GIO ; Land v. 
Jetfries, 5 Uund. 211. 

A conveyance in fraud of one creditor is void as to all creditors. Hoke 
r. ITendvrson, 2 Dev. 12. 

Any agreement cntcreil into by a deI)tor wiih a view to deprive his 
creditors of his future earning-:, and enalile liim to ntain and use them 
for his own benelit and advant.ige, is fraudulent. Trij)p i. Childs, 14 
Barb. y.i. 

All conveyances for the u-e of the grantor arc fraudulent and null 
against creditors. Mackie r. Cairns, 1 Ilopk. 373; 8. c. 2 Cow. (54; Wil- 
son r. Cheshire, 1 McCord's Ch. 233 ; Brown r. Dcmald, 1 Hill's Ch. 297; 
Jackson r. Parker, Cow. 73; Van Wyck r. Seward, 18 "NVeml. 375; 
Lukin r. Aird. «» Wall. 7H; Smith r. Smitli, 11 N. H. 400. 

A conveyance upon trusts of a louse and imlefuiite nature, and control- 
able by tho grantor, is fraudulent. Burbank ;•. Hammond, 3 Summer 
4 J 9. 

,\ sale of i)roi>erty by an in>-olvcnt debtor for long notes is fraudulent. 
Pope J. Andrews. 1 Smcd. \\: Mar. Ch. 13.';; Kepner r. Burkhart, T) Barr, 
47H; Borland r. Walker, 7 Ala. 209; Grannis r. Smith, 3 Humph. 179; 
Mitchell r. I5.al, 8 Ycrg. 134. 

A deed of articles consumable in their use is void on its face against 
creditors. Hunter r. Foster, 4 Humph. 211; Wade r. Green, 3 Humph. 
.'>47 ; Charlton r. Lcay, n Humph. 490; Bichmond r. Ciirdup, 1 Meigs, 
581. 

A judgment voluntarily confessetl by an insolvent debtor for moro 



rUAl 1) I TON TlIliM) I'AiniKS. VJ7 

lep;isl!itnre with the \ iuw of aniniuM;^ the nik; :im\ c-firryin^ 
tho i)rinciples ul' thu coniinou law inuro fully into eireet, 



thnn is ilac is j)''iina fncie frniHlulcnt. (lark r. Douglass, C2 Penn. 408; 
SfWiill r. Kussell, 2 Pai<rc, 175. 

If a plaiiitiir to an execution places it in tin- liamls of the slurifr wilii 
nuj" otlur view than that of having it hjua Jide executed, it is not vuliil 
against sulise(|uent executions. Weir v. Hale, 3 W. ic S. 280; Matthews 
r. Warnc, G Ilalst. 29."). 

A mortgage made by an insolvent del)tor which covers more property 
than is necessary to secure the mortgage debt, is fraudulent. JJailey v. 
Burton, 8 Wend. 339: Mitchell v. Bcal, 8 Yerg. 134; J ennett v. Union 
Bank, o Iluniph. 612 ; see Downs r. Kis.sam, 10 How. 102. 

A mortgage made in good faith to secure future advances is not fraud- 
ulent. United States r. Hoe, 3 Cranch, 73; "Wilson r. Russell, 13 Md. 
494 ; Lansing v. Woodworth, 1 Sandf. Cli. 43 ; Hendricks v. liobinson, 2 
Johns. Ch. 283. 

The length of time which a mortgage has to run may in connection 
•with other facts l)c evidence of fraud. Spalding r. Fisher, o7 Me. 411- 
Crofts r. Arthur, 3 Dessau. 223; I^Iitchell v. Beal, 8 Yerg. 134. 

A purchase in the name of a third person with intent to defraud tlie 
creditoi-s of the purchaser, maj* be set aside. Guy r. Faria, 7 Yerg. 155 • 
Kimmel r. Mesright, 2 Barr, 38; Guthrie r. Gardner, 9 Wend. 414 • Far- 
row r. Teackle, 4 H. J. 271; Wiss r. Tri])p, 1 Shep. 9; Peay r. Sublet 1 
Mo. 449; Coleman t. Cocke, G Rand. G18; Elliott r. Horn, 10 Ala. 355. 

A purchase in the name of a third ])erson can not be declared void in 
an action at law by a j)urchaser under a judgment. Howe r. Bishop, 3 
Met. 2G ; Dolkray r. Mason, 48 Me. 178. 

A reconveyance by the grantee under a fraudulent deed is fraudulent 
as to his creditors. Chapin v. Pease, 10 Ct. GO. 

A mortgage made by the mortgagor after the execution of a fraudulent 
deed is valid and binds the property. Fox r. Clark, Walker's Ch. 535 

A fraudulent conveyance is void in Mo, and not partly valid and 
partly void. When a deed is made void by statute, it is void throughout. 
Mackie r. Cairns, 1 Hopk. 373 ; s. c. 5 Cow. 547 ; Kirby v. Ingersoll, Harr- 
ing's Ch. 172 ; Hyslop r. Clark, 1 1 Johns. 4G4 ; Weedon v. Uawes, 10 Ct. 
50 ; Tickner r. Wishall, 9 Ala 305. 

A judgment recovered after the execution of the fraudulent convey- 
ance is a lien upon the land, except as against hjth'tjldc purchasers. Man- 
hattan Co. r. Evertson, G Paige, 457. 

A fraudulent deed set aside at the instance of creditors, docs not bar 
the surviving -wife of dower as against creditors or purchasers under a 
mere decretal sale. Dugan r. Massey, G Bush, 81 ; Goodworth r. Paiao. 5 
Ohio St. R. 70 ; Summers r. Bebb, 13 111. 483 ; Stribliug r. Ross, IG lil 



198 niMi) iroN thiki) p autii:.'^. 

declared by statutes 50 Kdw. III,c. <;, and :5 Hen. VII, c. 4, all 
fniudulent iritts of poods and fliattrls in tni>t lor the donor 
and to delVaud creditors to bevuid; and by 1.'5 KHz. c. T), all 
gifts, grants, and conveyances of goods, chattels, or land, 
made with an intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditorsi 
were rendered void as against the person to whom such 
frauds would be iTcjudicial.* Estates, however, or interests 
in land or chattels conveyed or assured hoiid fide and upon 
good consideration, without notice of any fraud or collusion, 
are excepted from the operation of the statute.' 

The statute 13 Eliz. c. 5, does not declare voluntary con- 
veyances to be void, but only declares all fraudulent convey- 



' Tarleton •. Lidddl, 17 Q. 15. 391. * 13 Eliz. c. B. g. 6, Poe Tnrlpton r. 

Liddcll, 17 Q. 13. 390. 4 Dog <t S. 638. 



122; Pixley r. Bcnnott, 11 Mas.s. 298; Enlunson r. Bates, 3 Met. 40 ; 
Kanilolph r. Ddss, ;} How.. (^lisd.) iOo; contra ^lanliattan Co. r. Evcrtson, 
6 Paige, 457. 

A purcha.'scr at a sale under an execution is clothed with all the rights 
of the judgment creditor. Sands r. Ilildreth, 2 Johns. Cli. 35; 8. c. 14 
Johns. 4!»3 ; Frakes r. Brown, 2 Blackf. 205 ; Gray r. Tappan, Wright, 
117 ; Price r. Sykes, 1 Hawks, 87. 

A fraudulent conveyance is valid against all partie-, except creditors. 
Riindall r. Phiiliiis, \\ Mason, 378; Anderson r. Bradford, 5 J. J. Mar>li. 
69; Woodman r. Bodfish, 25 Me. 817; Moray r. Forsyth, Walker's Ch. 
465 ; Delesdemier r. Moary, 2 A])p. 150. 

A vendee claiming uniler a fraudulent deed gains no title l)y a pur- 
chase under an execution. Foulk r. M'Farlans, 1 W. & S. 2'J7. 

A wife having a lawful claim for alimony, is a creditor. Fciglcy r. 
Feiglcy, 7 Md. 537 ; Boils r. Boils, 1 Cold. 284 ; Flake r. Brown, 2 Blackf. 
295. 

A person having a claim for a tort, is a creditor. I.illard r. M'Gcc, 4 
Bil)l). in5 ; Jackson r. Myers, 18 Johns. 425; Farnsworlh r. Nell, 5 Sneed, 
531; Langfonl r. Fly, 7 Humph. 585; Walradt r. Brown, 1 (iilman, 307; 
contra. Fowler r. Frisbie, 3 Ct. 320. 

TIk" act applies to sureties aB well as ])rineipal debtors. Van Wyck r. 
Hkrwnrd, 18 Wend. 375 ; Howe r. Ward, 4 fireenl. 195 ; Hutchinson r. Kelly, 
1 Hob. 123; Carlisle r. Hlrh, 8 N. II. 44 ; Russell r. Stiuson, 3 Hey. 1 ; 
Thompson r. Thompson, 1 A]»p. 214 



FHArD T'PON THIRD TARTirS. 100 

nnccs to he voiM.^ AVht'thcr a fdiivryaiicL; !)»• IVainliilciit or 
not is (Ic'clarcd by the statute" to depend uj)uii its hein;^ made 
"upon good consideration and hond fidcP It is not sufficient 
tliat it he up(»ii i^oitd (.•onsidLTation or himd jidf. It must he 
both. Althoui;]i a deed he made upon good consideration 
within the meaning of the statute, it is void against creditors, 
unless it he hand fide? * Tlie expression " good considera- 
tion" in tlie statute means vahiahlo consideration. Meritorious 
consideration, sucli as h)ve, allcction, iS:c., tliouirli g »»m1 as 
between tlie parties themselves, is not in the eye of the law 
bona fidcyM it is inconsistent with that good faith which is 
due to creditors.^ t As between the parties themselves and 
all persons claiming under them in privity of estate, voluntary 
conveyances are binding/ but in so tar as they have the eflect 
of delaying, defrauding, or deceiving creditors, voluntary con- 
veyances are not hond fide, and are void as against creditors 
to the extent to which it may be necessary to deal with the 
property to their satisfiietion. To this extent, and to this 
extent only, they will be treated as if they had not been made. 
To every other jjurpose they are good.' 

'Russell V. ITftnini'iml, 1 Atk. 13; Fraser v. Tliompson, 4 D. <fe J. 600 

Doe j>. KoutleiliTc. C'owp. 70S ; Cadogan Coilett v. Iladclitle, 14 Moo. P. C. 121, 

V. Kennett, ib. -V^-l. 434 ; Ilolloway v. 13.5. 

Millard. 1 Madd. 414; Gale v. AVilliam- ' Copis v. Middieton, 2 Madd. 430; 

son, 8 M. it W. 405. Taylor v. Jones, 2 Atk. COO ; Strong v. 

"Twyne's Case. 3 Co. Eep. 81; Strong'. 18 Beav. 408; Goldsmith v. 

Worsley v. De Mattos, 1 Burr. 474, Kussell. 5 D. M. i G. 547. 

475; Cados:an v. Kennett, Cowp. 434; * I'etre t'. E.spiiiasse, 2 M. <fc K. 496; 

Bott t'. Smith, 21 Beav. 510 ? Jiarman Bell v. Cureton, ih. 5(i3 ; French v. 

V. Richards. 1<> Ua. 81 ; Thompson v. French, 6 D. M. <fc G. '.t5. 

Webster, 4 Drew. (VIS; 7 Jur. N. S. * Curtis v. Price, 12 Yes. 103; Wors- 

531 ; Lloyd v. Attwood, 3 D. <fc J. 055; ley v. De Mattos, 1 Burr. 474 : Bott v. 



* "Whiting r. John-;on, 11 St. R. 328; Clements r. Moore, G "Wall. 229; 
Ashmcatl r. Hcan, 13 Penn. 584. 

t Edgington r. ."Williams, "Wright, 439; Gooclell r. Taylor, Wright, 82 ; 
O'Brien r. Coulter, 2 Blaekf. 421 ; Killough r. Steele, 1 Stew. & Port. 2(52. 

The services of a minor son, unless emancipated, are not a good con- 
Bideratiou. Dick r. Grissom, 1 Freem, 428 ; Brown r. McDonald, 1 Uillg 
Ch. 300. 



200 rUAll) I TON TIllKI* I'AKTII.S. 

A (1 i-'l wliii-li ;ii>])t'!irs to lie V(^luIltary iii.iy lie sliown by 
any I'viiloncc (consistiiit with its terms) to liavo hceii niado 
fur valualde consiik'ratioii,' l»ut the evidence must be clear and 
free from sus}»i('i<»M.* 

It is nut enoUij:li, in order to suj)j)ort a settlement a^^ainst 
creditors, that it he made tor vahiahle consideration. It must 
also be bond ,/?</<. Jt' it he made witli intent to delay, hinder, 
or defraud creditors, it is voi(l as against them, although there 
may l»e in the strictest sense a valuable or even an adequate 
consideration.'* Cases have frecjuently occurred, iu "which 

Smith, 21 Boav. SIC; Croker v. Martin, v. "\Villi!un«on, 8 M. it W. -lO.') ; Kelson 

1 IJlisrIi's N. S. r>73 ; Frcntii r. I'nncl), v. Kelson, li> lln. :iS:>; Towni-nd v. 

6 D. M. <fc Ct. <.K>; Ncnlo r. Day. '2S L. Toker, L. U. 1 Ch. .Vp. 416, iiipra, \k 

J. Ch. 45. See Waketi.ld v. Giblxm. 1 1'.I2. 

Giff. 4nl ; Murpliy r. .\braliain, 1') Ir. ' Graham v. O'Kfcfo, Irt Ir. Ch. 1. 

Ch. 371 ; Shttw v. Jcflrcy, 13 iloo. V. * Twvne's Casse, 3 Co. Hep. 81; Uol- 

C. 432. ' mes v. i'enney, 3 K. <k J. M'J. 
» I'ott V. Toilhunter, 2 Coll. 70; Gale 



* Cragg r. M:irtin, 13 Allen, 498; Bnuly r. Briscoe, 12 J. J. [Marsh. 
212; Boznian r. Draughan, 3 Stew. 343 ; Kempner r. Churchill, 8 Wall. 
302 ; "Ward r. Trotter, 3 ^lon. 1 ; Ayfls r. Moore, 2 Stew. 330 ; Trotter r. 
Watson, G Humph. 509 ; Peck r. Land, 2 Kelly, 1 ; Farmers' Bank r. 
Douglass, 11 Smed. it Mar. 409; Dacey r. Daniel, 1 Smith, 2r)2; Wrigiit 
f. Brandi.<, 1 Carter, 330 ; Carr r. Hill, 1 Stockt. 210; Bum r. Abl,29 Poun. 
887; Root r. Reynolds, 32 Vt. 139. 

A deed not at first fraudulent may become so by being concealed or 
not pursued, if creditors are thereby drawn to give credit to the grantor. 
Uildreth r. Sands, 2 Johns. Ch. '.i'> ; Perins r. Dunn, 3 Johns. Ch. WS. 

A conveyance to a creditor of property sullicient to pay his full del)t 
upon condition that he will give a portion to the grantor's wife, is fraud- 
ulent. Kissjim r. Kdmonston, 1 Ired. Eq. 180. 

A Bul>s4'<iuent payment will not give validity to a conveyance that was 
originally fraudulent. Poague r. Boyce, J. J. Marsh. 70; Lynde r. Mc- 
Gregor, 13 Alien, 213; llartman r. Diller, 02 Pcnn. 37; Pettiltone r, 
Stevens, 15 Ct. 19; Thomas r. Goodwin, 12 Mass. 1 10. 

If an instrument is made with the intent to hinder and delay creditors, 
it is not purged, becau.Hc the grantor may nlso have ha<l some other pur- 
pose in view. Reed r. Noxon, IH 111. 323; Merry r. Bostwick. 13 111. 21. 

A «leed which misrepresents the transaction which it recites, and tho 
consideration upon which it is foumbd, is liable to suspicion, but if 
uiKia inveatigation the real transaction appears to be fair thoujli sonio- 



FUALli LTON TIlll:i) I'AKTIIl.S. UOl 

persons liavo given a full and fair price i\jv goods, and wlieru 
the j)os.session has been actually changed, yet being done for 
the purjKJse of delaying or defeating creditors the transaction 
has been heltl fraudulent, and has therefore been set aside as 
against theni.^ Thougli there be a judgment against the 
vendor, and the purchaser has notice of it, that fact will not, 
of itself, atlect the validity of the sale of ])ersonal pro})erty. 
Ijut if the purchaser, knowing of the judgment, ])urchase3 
with the view and purpose to defeat the creditor's execution, 
it is iniquitous and fraudulent, notwithstanding he may have 
given a full ])rice, for it is assisting the debtor to injure the 
creditor. The question of fraud depends on the motive.' * 

' Holmes V. Penncv, 3 K. cfe J. 99 ; M Biirr. 474; Cowp. 434, per Lord 

Worslcy v. De Mattos, 1 Burr. 474, Mansfiuld; 8 Tuunt. 078, per Dallas, 

475; Cadognii v. KL-nnutt, Cowp. 434 ; C. J, 
Ilarman v. Uichnrds, 10 Ha. 81. 



what variant from that which is described, it will be valid. Shirras r. 
Craig, 7 Cranch, ;U ; Storcr r. Ilairiiif^ton, 7 Ala. 142 ; Frost v. Warren, 
43N. Y. 204; Hubbard r. Turner, 2 McLean, 519; Bumpass v. Dotson, 
7 Humph. 310. 

A deed absolute in form but intended as a mortgage, is valid if made 
in gooil faitli. Chickering v. Hatch, 3 Sumner, 474; Butler r. Stoddard. 
7 Paige, 103 ; Smith r. Onion, 19 Vt. 427 ; Halcombe r. Ray, 1 Ired. 340 ; 
contra, North r. Belden, 13 Ct. 376; Tift r. Walker, 10 X. H. 150; 
Hadstior r. Williams, 31 Ala. 149. 

* Lowry r. Pinson. 2 Bailey, 324 ; Hickman r. Quinn, 6 Yerg. 36 ; 
Bullock V. Irving, 4 Munf. 450 ; Bird r. Aitken, 1 Bice's Ch. 73; Thorn- 
ton r. Davenport, 1 Scam. 290 ; Williams r. Jones. 2 Ala. 314; Clemens r. 
Davis, 7 Barr, 203 ; Betters r. Smith, 4 Rich. E(i. 197. 

It is not sufficient that a creditor knows of the double intent of the 
debtor to give a preference and to defeat other creditors, and that he con- 
curs in the act by which that intent in both its aspects is effectuated. He 
must have concurred in the illegal intent l)efore he can be involved in its 
consequences. Ford r. Williams, 3 B. Mon. 550; Worland r. Kiinberlin, 
15. Mon. 008; Brown r. Smith, 7 B. "Sloii. 301. 

Notice of the fraudulent intent before the payment of the jnirchaso 
money will make the conveyance fraudulent. Parkinson r. Hanna. 7 
Blackf. 400; Johnson v. Brandia. 1 Smith, 203; White r. Graves, 7 J. J. 
Marsh. 523. 

A conveyance can not b3 impeached by proof of a fraudulent iotcat 
14 



202 THAI I) ri'oN' riiii:!) i-aktiks. 

The Citn.Mdcrrttion (»t' iii.irriai^i', altli<»iii;li the most valuablo 
of all considoratioiis, it" tluTo he bond ,^V/<'.s',' will intt support a 
settlcnuMit l»y a man iu iiisdlvciit <ii- embarrassed circum- 
Btancos, if there be evidence to show that the intended wife 
was implicated in any design to delay or defraud the cred- 
itors of the intended husband, or that the marria;ri' was part 
of a scheme or contrivance between them to j»rotect hid 
proi)erty against the claims ot his creditors.'* 

A postnuptial settlement made in pursuance of a prior 
valid written ai^^reement is valid against creditors,t but a 
parol antenuptial airrecment does not prevent a postnuptial 
settlement from being V(_)luntary.^ Xor will the written 
recognition alter marriage of a verl>al ])romise, made before 



' Cnmiiion ». Cotton, 17 Ves. Sfil; » Spiireeon v Colli. t. 1 Eilen, 61; 

Er-uartc M'lJurnif, 1 1). M. tt G. 441 ; Ilnndtill v. Mortjnn, 12 Vi's. 07; Las- 

DilKfs I'. IJrtKuliiR'inl, '1 ]). V. it J. rxK). gence v. Tieriicy, 1 .Mac. «k G. fiM ; Ex- 

* ColombitR' t'. I'<nliull, 1 Sin. «t (J. j^rtr M'Burnu', 1 1>. M. AG. 446; 

228;'Fraser v. Tli<.mi)s..n, 4 1). «fe J. Wnnk-n v. Jones. 2 D. & J. 70; Goldi- 

6<X). Hee ex-parh M'Uuruii', 1 1). M. <k cutl i-. Townscnil, 28 IJoav. 445. 
G. 445. 



on the part of the prantor, unless it is knomi to the grantee. Green v. 
Tanner. H M..-t. 411; Sands r. IIil..lretli, 14 Johns. 4!):5; Aster r. W'HIs, 4 
"NVhent. 406; Stover r. llcrrinjxton, 7 Ala. 142; Violctt r. Violett, 2 Diina, 
32:J ; Partcls r. Harris, 20 Ct. 480; Splaun t. Martin, 17 Ark. 14G ; Chou- 
teau r. Sherman, 11 Mo. 38j ; Bancrotl r. Blizzanl, lU Ohio, HO. 

Although the law jjerinit-i a failing di-lttor to maki- a prclVn-nce, it 
denii-s hin» liu- riglit while doing so to provide that iinprelerred creditors 
shall never be paid. Dniry r. Cro.>9. 7 Wall. 2'.»9. 

♦ A uiarriuge settlement must Iw reasonable, and with a due regard to 
the rights of others. If it is di.xproportionate to the means of the grantor, 
it is fniudulent. Simj)son r. Graves, Riley's Ch. 2112; Croft r. Arthur, 
;3 Deanau. 22:!. 

To make an antenuptial .xettlement voi<l as a fraud upon creditor.-J, it is 
necessary that l»oth parties bhould eoncur in or have eogui/anec of the 
fraud. 3Iagniac r. Tliompson, 7 Pet. 'M^. 

A conveyance by the grantee under a fraudulent dec<l to a creditor of 
the grantor for the purpose of recovering his debt, is valid. Urown v. 
Webb, 20 Ohio, :(H». 

t Mngniac r. Thompson, 7 I'et. 3;^8; J.ockwoo<l r. Nelson, 10 Ala. 204, 



ruAii) I IN IN Tiiiui) I'Airnr.s. 203 

marriage, Bupi)ort a postnuptial settleincnt against creditors.' 
l*o.stiiii])tial SL'ttk'iiU'iits arc, as a fjeiit'ral rule, voluntary 
deeds, and, llieref'ore, void as a;^ain.st crcilitors;' * hut in 
certain cases tJie citncurrence of a stranircr may dcpri\(' a 
postnuptial settlement of its vnluntarv cliaiMctcr.^ So also a 
postnuptial settlement made on the recei])t of an additional 
portion is a settlement for valuable consideration.* The fart 
that a ])ostnuptial settlement may be founded on a moi'al 
duty, will iidt deprive it of its volimtarv character.' In cer- 
tain cases, howcvei', a settlement made nj)on a wife aftfi- 
marria<^a^, is not to be treated as wludly voluntary, Avhere it is 
done in performance of a duty which a court of equity would 
enforce.f Tluis, if a man should contract a marriage by 
stealth with a w<»man having a considerable fortune in the 
hands of trustees, and he should afterwards make a suitable 
provision on her in respect of her fortune, the settlement 
would not be set aside in favor of the creditors of the husband, 
since a court of erpiity would not suffer him to take pos- 
session of her fortune, without making a suitable settlement 
on her.' 

' Randall t'. Morj^an, 12 Vcs, C7; 'Moore v. Rycault, Free. Ch. 22, 

"WariK-n v. Joius, 2 1). &, J. 70. niul other cases cited, 1 Fonk. Bk. 1, c. 

^ yiig. V. & v. 715. 4, g 12, and note (/>), ih. c. 2, ^ 6; Jones 

* Dart. V. A' P. 576. See Ilolmes i-. v. alarsh, Ca. t. Talb. 64; Wheeler i;. 

Penney, 3 K. & J. 90. Caryl, Amb. 121; Jewson v. Moulson 

*buir. V. & r. 718; Dart, V. ifc P. 2 Atk. 417: Middlecombe v. Marlow. 

570. »7>. ol'.t; Ward v. ShuUett, 2 Yes. li".; 

' ITolloway v. Ilcadinfjcton, 8 Sim. Kani--(len v. Ilylton, t7>. 3o4; Arundell 

S24; Jetlervs v. Jcfferys, Cr. d: Ph. 138, v. Pliijips, lo Yes. 139. 
141. 



* Izard r. Izard. 1 Bailey's Ch. 228: Saunders v. Ferrill, 1 Led. 97; 
Deerlifll r. Fisher, K. M. Charlton, 30; Blow r. ]\Iaynard, 2 Leigh, 29; 
Jones i\ Henry, 3 Litt. 427; Simpson r. Graves, liiliy's Ch. 232. 

t Wickes V. Clark, 3 Ed\y. Ch. .58: Bank of U. S. r. Brown. Riley's 
Ch. 131; Smith r. Greer. 3 Humph. 118; Garrell r. Grant, 4 Met. 4^*3; 
McCauley r. Rhodes, 7 B. IMon. 462. 

An antenuptial settlement upon the intended wife and ht-r children, 
born before marriage, is valid. Coutts r. Grecnhoni. 2 ^lunf 3iJ3 ; 8. c. 4 
Hon. & M. 485. 



'-^04 rnAi'i) ri'(»N iiiiKi* I'AP.Tirs. 

An :mtoini|iti;il (.('ttliMiieiit nuifaiiiiii'; trusts in favor of tlio 
husband, \\i\\\ niul issui-, :m«l mIm. ulfcrinr trusts for colInteraltJ 
is, so far as thf ulterior trusts nro cont'erned, V(»luntarv ;' Imt 
if tljc limitations in the settU-nionts so interfere with those 
Avhieh would naturally be made in favor of the husband, wife, 
and issue, that thev must be presutned to have been airrccd 
upon by all parties, as jtart «>f the marriai^c eontract, they are 
not voluntary and will be uj)held.'^ 

There is some inconsistency in the decided eases on the 
subject of conveyances in fraud of creditors. Some cases 
appear to lay down the rule that a deed is not invalid, unless 
the grantor or settler was at the time iii(lel>tcd to the extent 
of insolvency, l)Ut tlie rule as so laid down is clearly not cor- 
rect.' According' to dir/a, in other casies, a voluntary settle- 
ment is not invalid, althoui,di the settler may have been 
considerably indebted at the time of the settlement, provided 
he was not indclited licyond his means of j)ayment rcmainini^ 
after the settlement.* But in Spirett v. Willows,* Lord West- 
Itury laid it down as the conclusion to be drawn from the 
cases, that if the debt of the creditor, by whom the voluntary 
settlement is impeached, existed at the date of the settlement, 
and it be the necessary consequence of the settlement that 
creditors are defrau«led or delayed, it is immaterial whether 
the debtor was or was not solvent alter makini,' the settle- 
ment. ''The fact,'' he said, "of a voluntary settler retaining 
money enough to pay the debts which he owes at the time of 
making the scttlemiiit, luit not actually paying ihcni, caniutt 
give a different character to the settlement or take it out of 
the statute. It still remains a voluntarv alienation (»r deed of 



' Smith r. Chfrrill. L. U. 4 Kq. :!'.iO. Henv. :M0; Sknrf v. Sonlliy, 1 Mnc. A 

»(.lnrko V. Writrl.t, (i II. it N. Kf.y ; (J. :i»V», l II. ,t Tw. .J'J»"; I-'r.nrli v. 

iJart, V. <t I'. f'TH, .''Hi. ».<•.. „i/rri, KniH-li. I'. 1>. .M. it (;. \»r>; Stwiinl v. 

* 4 Drew, 6:52 /xr K'hiiIithIi-v. V.-C. Jackmin, H Cow. (Arin-r.), lort. 

* Sco Tuwnm;inl v. W^htiicoU, 2 * 34 L. J. Cli. 365. 



FIIAI I> I I'ON rilllM* I'AKTIES. 20.") 

^ilY, wlicrchv in tlio event tlic jTiiic<lics of creditors arc 'ije- 
layetl, liiiuloreil, or (let"raii<li'<l.' "' 'I'lic rule- r-o laid down may 
oj)erate liarslily in cases wlicix- an ain])le Innd is retained l»y a 
settler I'ui' the payiiiL'Ut of liis (lrl»ts, ami lie al'terwards, at 
some distance uftinie, loses or spends so much of his j)ro]»erty 
as not to leave enough to pay snch de])ts. But the rule 
appears on the mIioIo to he sound, and agrees with the 
opinion of JCent, C^, in Livingstone v. Ileade.' "The con- 
elusion,'' he said, "to he drawn fi-oni the cases is that if 
the party is indehted at the time of the voluntary settlement, 
it is ])resunied to he fraudulent in respect to such debts, 
and no circumstance Avill permit those dehts to Ijc aHected hy 
the settlement or repel the legal presumption of fraud. The 
presumption of law in this case does not depend upon the 
amount of debts or the extent of the property in settlement 
f»r the circumstances of the party. There is no such line of 
distinction set up or traced in any of the cases. The attempt 
wt»uM be embarrassing, if not dangerous to the rights of cred- 
itors, and prove an iidet to fraud. The law has, therefore, 
\visely disabled the del)tor from making any voluntary settle- 
ment of liis estate to stand in the Avay of existing debts." It 
must, however, be observed that the reasoning of Kent, C, 
has not been followed in later American cases, and that the 
doctrine has not been pressed to the extent of holding a volun- 
tary conveyance made on a meritorious consideration, as of 
blood and atfection, void, because there was a small indebted- 
ness at the time. The better doctrine has been lield to 1)6 
that there is no absolute presumption of fraud which entirely 
disregards the intent and purpose of the conveyance, if the 
grantor happened to be indebted at the time it was made, but 
that such a conveyance, under such circumstance, afibrds only 

' Sec Fiench »-. Fronch; fi D. M. it: C. 121, 135 ; Smith i-. Chcrrill, L. R. 4 
G. 95 ; Tlionipsoa i*. Wibster, 7 -Tii!-. N. Eq. li'.ij. 
S. bol ; Corlett v. UadcUfie, 1 1 Moo. 1'. » 3 Johns. Ch. (Amcr.), 500, 



•J()t'. IKAl I> I ioN •Illli:i> I'AKTIES. 

2>rima fitc'uy or |)rc'suin])tive eviileiici' of iVaiitl, whicli may l»e 
rt'buttoil or (•••ntrollrd, tlu* •(Ui'stioii boliiir in each wkjc a ques- 
tion' of fact for the jiiiv.* 

Tn liis Coninientaries' Kent, C, a(huits tlie tendency of 
the ilceisions both in America and Knijhind to he to leave tlie 
conchi>ion of fraud as a matter of fact tor a jury ; hut he does 
not a]>})rove of the ride, and adheres to tlie doctrine of Koade 
r. Liviuirstone, and thinks that the presumption of fraudulent 
intent in cases of the sort may and outrht to be an inference 
of law.»* 

The i>rovisions of the stat. 13 Eliz. c. 5, are not confined 
to cxistiui; creditors, but extend to subsequent creditors, whoso 

' Sewanl r. Jackson. 8 Cow. (Amor.), mnrth, 9 i7>. 3">r. ; Story'.-* Eq. Jur. 36± 

4(»i>; Bank of I'nited States c. House- See also Thompson y. Wi-bster. 4 Drew, 

man, 6 I'niire (.Viner. ), .')2iJ ; Wickcs r. 082. ywr Kinilersley, V.-C. ; Graham r. 

Chirke. » l'uii;e (Anu-r. ), ir..'>; llintle's O'lC-efc, 1»> Jr. Ch.'l. 

Lessees ». Loncjwortli, 11 Wheat. ' Vol. 2, p. 442. 

(Amer.). I'.t9; Tlmcher v. rhiiiney, 7 ' See Van Wyck r. Seward, 18 Wend. 

Allen (Amer.), 150; Lcrow v. Wil- (Amer.) 392, 405. 



* A voluntary conveyance l)y a person not indebted is good against 
future crcditoi's. So.xton r. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 229 ; Bi-nton r. Jones, 8 
Ct. ixG; Mattingly v. Xye, 8 Wall. 370 ; Davis r. Payne, 4 Hand. 332; 
Baker r. Welch, 4 Mo. 484. 

A voluntary deed by a person indebted at the time of its execution is 
not absolutely void as again.st creditors. The mere fact of being in debt 
does not make the deed fraudulent if it can be shown that the gift was a 
na.'ional'I'' provision according to the state and eondition of the grantor, 
and left cnou^di for tin* payment of debts. The want of consideration is 
only n presumptive liadge of fraud, and may Ik' nu-t and rebutted by 
evi<lence on the other side. Ilinde r. Longworth, 11 Wheat. 190; Parish 
r. Murphree, 13 How. 92; Salmon v. Btnnett, 1 Ct. 525; Ilopkirk r. 
Randolph, 2 Brork. 132; Leyne r. Bankof Ky., 5 J. J. Marsh. 545; Young 
I. White, 2") Mis«. 110; Carpenter r. Hoe, HI N. Y. 227; Wilson r. Houser, 
12 Penn. I'lO ; Lerow r. Wilinarth, 9 Allen. ;(S2 ; Do Id r. MiCraw, 3 Eng. 
H3; Amctt «. Wanett, Ired. 41; Hall r. IMrington, 8 B. .Mon. 47 ; 
Ktfwart V. Rogers. 25 Iowa, 395; Van Wyck r. Seward, 18 Wend. 375 ; 
Bank of Alexandria r. Patton, 1 Hob. 499; Dillard r. Dillard, 3 Humph. 
11^; Bird r. Boldue, 1 .M... 701. 

The relin'pii'-hment of a m irifal right to a legacy is valid against 
creditors. Oa'lego r, CJall ^'o, 2 Bro.k. 'iS't. 



FilAlI) I IMlN 'niIKU TAUTIKS. -07 

ck'lits liiiil not been contracted at tlic date of the settlement ; ' 
liut the principle will not operate in favor of liub.sejjuent cred- 
itors, unless it can be shown either that the ficttler made the 
settlement with tlic cxprc.-s intent to "delay, hinder, <.r 
defraud'' ])ers(»ns wlio niii;ht become creditors,'* or that after 
the settlement the settU-r had not sullicient means or reason- 
able exi)ectation of hchiy; aide to pay liis then cxistin<,' debts, 
in which case the law iniers that the settlement was nuide 
with intent to delay, hinder, or defrau«l creditors,' f or at least 
that there are debts unsatistied which were due at the date of 
the settlement.* If at the time of liling the bill no debt due 
at the execution of the settlement remains unpaid, and there 
is no evidence to show that the settlement had for its object 
the delayinir, hindcrini,^ or defrauding of subsequent creditors, 
the settlement prevails against theni,^ :}: but if any debt due at 

' Tnrback v. Mnrhiirv, 2 Vcrn. 600. 307, per Lord Wcsthury ; Tliomi)Son v. 

' Stileinaii v. Aslidown, 2 Atk. 481; Web.-tcr, 7 Jiir. N. S. .5:n. Conip. IIol- 

Stcplitns V. Ollivi', 2 Bro. C. C. '••! ; nies v. Peniu'V, 'i K. tt J. 9'i. 

llolloway V. :Miilnrd. 1 Madd. 414; ♦Jeidivn i*. Vaii-han, 3 Drew. 410 ; 

lli.liius t'. IVniu'v, :{ K. tk .J. 90; IJarl- IWtoii v. Vanheyiliuysen, 11 lla. 132. 

in;,' V. liUhop. 2*0 Bcav. 417; Murphy Couip. Holmes v. reniicy, 3 K. <t J. Oit. 

r."!\bra]iam, 15 Ir. (li. 371. ' Jeiikyu v. Vnii^^liaii, 3 Drew. 410. 

' Spiretl I'. Willows, 31 L. J. Ch. See Uussell v. Hammond, 1 Atk. 13; 



♦ Case V. Phelps, 39 N. Y. KU; Hall r. Sands. 52 Mc. 355; Bedford r. 
Crane, 1 C. E. Green, 205 ; Henderson r. Dodd, 1 Bailey's Ch. 138; Blake 
V. Jones, 1 Bailey's Ch, 141 ; Russell v. Stenson, 3 lley. 1 ; Cosby r. Ross, 
3 J. J Marsh. 2<J0 ; Bogard v. Gardley, 4 Smed. & Mar. 302 ; Wright r. 
Henderson, 7 How. (Miss.) 539 ; Iknry r. Fullerton, 13 Smed. & M ir. 
G31 ; Mullen v. Wilson, 44 Pcnn. 413; Savage r. Murphy, 8 Bosw. 7.i; 
Carlisle r. Rich. 8 X. II. 44 ; Winchester v. Charter, 12 Allen, GOG ; 97 
Mass. 140; 102 M;is.h. 272. 

t Parkman r. Welch, 19 Pick. 231 ; Bank of Alexandria r. Atwater, 1 
Kob. 499; Hutchinson v. Kelly, 1 Rob. 123; lley r. Niswang.'r, 1 Me- 
Cord'sCh. 518; s. c. 1 Harp. Ch. 295; Hamilton r. Thomas, 5 Hey. 127; 
Hanzen v. Power, 8 Dana, 91 ; Mason r. Rogers, 1 Root, 324 ; Miller r. 
Thompson, 3 Port. 198; Clark r. French, 10 Shep. 221; .McConipe r. 
Sawyer, 12 N. H. 396 ; Thompson v. Dougherty. 12 S. ctR. 448; Somcr- 
ville r. Horton, 4 Yerg. 541 ; Darwin r. Ilandley, 3 Yerg. :'02 : Simpson 
r. Mitchell, 8 Yerg. 417; King r. Wilcox, 11 Paige, 589 ; lle.ster r. Wil- 
kinson. G Humph. 215. 

; Talc r. Tate, 1 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 22 ; Ingram r. Philii)3, 3 Strobh. 8G5. 



'2i)i> 



riiAii) I PON Tiiii;i) I'AKTir.s. 



the (Into of the Pottloiiuiit rrm:iiiis iin^;iti>lir(l at the time of 
liliui^ the hill,* «tr it" tlu-re he rvidrnci- t(» ^h.>\\• that the settle- 
ment was made in e(>ntem|tlation of I'lituri' dchts, or in furthcr- 
anee of a meditated desi:,rn of future fraud, althouirh the settler 
may not liavc been indehted at the time,' the deed will be set 
aside.' If a settlement is set aside as fraudulent a^xainst ered- 
itors whose debts accrued before its execution, 8ubse(iucnt 
creditors are entitled to participate:* but if antecedent cred- 
itors can not make out a case for setting it aside, subsequent 
creditors can not imjieach the settlement as fraudulent by 
reason of the prior indebtment.' 

In Holmes v. Penni'v " the conveyance by a man of his 
proj>erty to trustees for valuable consideration upon trust to 
apjily it at their discretion in tlie maintenance of himself, his 
wife and children, or any of them, in such a manner as they 
should think lit, was held valid against subsequent creditors, 



Ilolmcfl V. Tcnnoy. 3 K. »t J. Ofi ; Barl- 
iiifj r. lUshoji, 'i'.t Bcav. 417; Thompson 
r. Webster, 7 Jur. N. S. 6:il. 

' Joiikyn I'. Viiutjhiiii, 8 Drew. 410. 
Comp. llulmc^ f. rerincy, -i K. it J. 
90. See Graham v. U'Kcefe, 16 Ir. 
Ch, 1. 

' Slileman v. Aslxlown. 2 Atk. 481 ; 
iriohard.'^on f, Sirmilwooil. Jac. 552; 
llolh.way V. Millard, 1 Ma.M. 414; 
I'arlini; r. Bishop, 2'.» Ik-av. 417; Mur- 
phy f. Abruhum, 15 Ir. Ch. 371 ; Gra- 



ham r. O'Keefe, IG Ir. Cli. 1 ; Savage 
V. Murpliy, 7 TilF. (.\mer.) 508. 

' See \VhUtiiiy;ton v. Jennings, 6 Sim. 
490. 

* Riciiardson t*. Smallwood, Jac. 552 ; 
Ede V. Knowl.'s. 2 Y. .t V. C. C. 172 ; 
B«irt«ii I'. \'iinlii\ tiuivscii, 11 Ila. 1S2. 

»Sco ll.dlowav f." Millard, 1 Madd. 
419; Walker r." Burrows, I Atk. y4; 
Edc V. Knowles. 2 Y. ik C. C. C. 172, 
17H. (.'omp. .^lory's Eq. Jur. BC3. 

• 3 K. J; J. HU. 



Accounts wliich have Wen niprpcd in jiidtrnu'nt^ may Ik- ofTcred in 
evidence to hIidw an indebteilno.^ prior to tlie niakinir of tin- dei'il. Hind.s 
r. Lonf^worlli. 11 Wheat. lUS); Harlan r. Barney fl Dana, 21'.». 

A contin;,'t lit debt likely to liecome al)Soliitc, and whiclj afterwunU 
does Ix-conic absolute, i.s sullicient. McLaiighliu r. Hank of Potomac, 7 
How. 220. 

A debt bv a n<ite \shi(li is afterwards n-newed, <ontinue.H to be the 
Bimo debt. .McLaughlin r. Bank of I'otoniai , 7 How. 'J20 ; Eij^lelxTger 
r. Kibler, 1 HIIPh Cli. li:{. 

Sulnvquent debts cnntrarted in exoneration of pn-eedinj? ones arc 
notliinj; more tlinn n continuance of antec-edent indebtedness. Brown t. 
McDonabl, 1 Hill's Ch. 2D7 ; Savage r. Murphy, »4 N. Y. rm. 



FRAUD UPON TlllKI) TAKTIKS. -(K) 

and also ar^.iinst a person mIio was a creditor at tlio time of 
making the conveyance, and whose debt was conceidcd liy tin; 
settler from tlic purchaser. It was also laid down' hy Wuou. 
1j. .1,, that a vohuitary settlement to the .^.ime effect would Iv 
upheld against subsequent creditors. 

In order to make a voluntary settlement or conveyance 
void as against creditors, whether cxistini; or subsequent, it is 
indispensable that it should transfer ]iro})erty Nfliich wouM be 
liable to be taken in execution for the ])ayment of debts.' * 
Under the old law a voluntary settlement of stock or of 
choses in action, or of copyholds, or of any other property 
not liable to execution was not within the statute of Elizabeth :^ 
but copyholds, bonds, money, stock, &c., etc., beini^ under 1 
Vict. c. 100 seizable in execution, arc now within the statute.* 

A strong presumption of fraud against creditors arises, 
where after a bill of sale of chattel property, purporting on 
its face to take effect immediately, the vendor or settler is 
after its execution permitted to remain in possession of the 
property." t It is otherwise, however, if his continuance in 

' 3 K. <fe J. 100. * Norcutt v. Dodd, Cr. <fe Ph. 100; 

" Sco Dundas v. Dntons, 1 Vc3. Jr. Barrack v. M'Cullock, 3 K. & J. 110; 

196; Caillaiul ?'. Estwick, Anst. 381; Frcncli v. French, G I). M. «t G. ;•:); 

Nantes v. C'oriock, 9 Yes. 1S8, 189; Wardt-n z». Jones, 2 D. <t J. 76 ; Stokoc 

Kider f. Kiililer, 10 Ves. 3Cy ; Guy v. v. Cowen, 29 Bcav. C37. 

Pearkes, IS Ves. 196. • Twyne's Case, 3 Co. Rep. 81; Ed' 

' lb ; llorn v. Horn, Amb. 79 ; wards v. llarben, 2 T. II. 587. 
Cochrane v. Chambers, ib. n. Norcutt ; 
V. Dodd, Cr. <fc Ph. lUO. 



* Bean V. Sniitli, 2 ;j[ason, 2.j2; Poatrue r. Boycc. 6 J. J. Maisli. 70; 
Bayard r. Iloirman, 5 Johns. Cli. 450; Planters' Bank v. Henderson. 4 
Humph. 75 ; "Winebrenner r. Wersigcr, 3 Mon. 32 ; Legro r. Lord, 1 Fairf. 
IGl ; Foster r. M'Gregor, 11 Vt. 595; Dearman t. Dearman, 4 Ala. 521; 
How r. Wayman, 12 3Io. 1G9; Lishey v. Chiyton. 6 Bush, 515. 

If a debtor without any secret trust or intentional fraud invests his 
money in improvements upon tlie real estate of another, his creditors can 
not treat such third party, or the land as liable to them. Ewing r. 
Cantrels, 1 Meigs. 304. 

t Concurrent possession by grantor and grantee is colorable. The 



210 riJAi I) I I'ON Tim:i» pautiks. 

possession is c.msi.sti'Mt with the iiaturi! of the tnuisaction, as 
where a hill ot' sale is not ahsohite on its lace or in its form, 
but only eoiulitional, so tliat i»os>es.sion is nut to he <,Mven until 
the condition has been performed.^* In Edwards v. llur- 
ben't the eourt went so far as to say that ])osscssion of goods 
sold under an altsohite hill of sah' is comlu-ive evidence of 
fraud; hut the tendenc}' of later decisions has been to qualify 
that doctrine, and the wei^dit of authority is in favor of the 
modilied doctrine that possession by the vendor or settler 
aflbrds only a badge or j)?'ima facie presumption of fraud, 
which may he rebutted by explanation, showing the trans- 
action to be fair and honest, and giving a reasonaldo ground 
for the retention of possession. The question as to fraud in 

' Edwards i-. Ilarln'O, 2 T. R. r.sV ; s.-o 17 <k 18 Vict c. ilC>. Rctjistration of 

Cadoijan i'. Konnctt, (.'owj> I'.H ; Martin- iJills of Sales Act, 1 Sinitli's L. C. 14: 

dal.- f. Houtli. :{ B. tt Ad. 4'.ts, 5<»r»; Addison on Contructs, 147-150. 
Miiwhall V. Lloyd, 2 IL <t W. 450; but » 2 T. U. 587. 



possession must he exclusive. Boyd t. Dunlap, 1 Johns. Ch. 478; Raxter 
r. Gaines, 4 lien it M. 151 ; Hall r. Parsons, 17 Vt. 271 ; Willis r. "Warner, 
19 Vt. 609 ; StacUler r. Wood, 24 Te.\. G22. 

Joint possession l)y husband and wile is not framlulent. Danforth r. 
Wood, 11 Pai^e, 9. 

A8Sumi)tion of ])Ossession after the death of the {.grantor is not sutli- 
cicnt. Shields v. Anderson, 3 Leigh, 729. 

A niort;,'agee who takes a release of an equity of redi mption, thereby 
eslingui.shcs his niortji;age, and, if the release is frau'.lulent, his rij,'ht h 
gone Gla.'-scock c. Batton, Rami. 78; Claybom v. Hill, 1 Wa.sh. (Va.) 
177; coritrfi, Irish r. Morse, 10 Vt. Hi ; Tou!c r. Hoit, 14 N. H. 01. 

• Letcher r. Norton, 4 Seam. 575; U. S. r. Hoe, 3 C'ranch, 73; Bank 
of Georj,Ma r. Hi^Ljinbottoni. 9 Pet. 148 ; Gist r. Prossley, 2 Hill's Ch. 
318; Bri;,';,'8 r. Parkinan, 2 Met. 258; Planters' & Merchants' Hank r. 
Willis, 5 Ala. 770; Leane r. Borland, 2 Shep. 77 ; Ash r. Savage, 5 N. H. 
545; Maney r. Killough, 7 Yerg. 440. 

t It has been hiid in tin; following cases that the retention of posses* 
pion by the vendor was fraudulent per k. Hamilton f. Uus.sell, 1 Craneli, 
310; Phettiplaee p. Sayb^, 4 Ma^on, 312; Fuller p. Sears, 5 Vt. 527; 
p\»n)8Worth v. Shepanl, Vl. 521 ; Mills p. Canip, 14 Cf. 219; Kirtland r. 
Sni»\v, 20 Ct. 23; Doaek r. Brubackcr, 1 Nev. 218; l!abl) r. Ch In^(•n, H" 8. 
iSc R 419; Young c, M'Clure, 2 W. Jc S. 147 ; Jarvis r. Davis, 14 B. Slon. 



FRAUD I TON Tlllin) PARTIES. LMl 

such cases is nut an inference of ];iu', but one of fact fur the 
jury.* * 

' Lady Animl.ll v. I'liipp-!, 10 Vc-s. 80fi, per Timlal, C. J. ; .MacihuKi r. 

115; Miirtitidalo v. Hootli, 3 \i. A A<1. Swiiicy, 8 Ir. C. L. T.i ; Cooku v. Wul- 

408, r.ori; LaliiiKT 1-. Biitsoii, 4 H. A. (J. kt-r, a W. R. 357; 1 biiiitli's L. C. p. 

(■.5'2; Liiuloii v. Sharp, ti M. «fe G. 8'J5, 13. 



53; Uunillcy v Wf!)l), :] J. J. Marsh. 043; Brcmmcl v. Stockton, 8 Dana, 
134; Chcnery v. Palmer, G Cul. 119; GiI)son r. Love, 4 Fla. 217; Sanders 
r. Popoon, 4 Fla.4(>"> ; IJowman v. IIcrr^nf,^4 Ilarrin^'. 45H ; Jorda r. Lewis, 
1 La. An. 5!); Cohurii r. Pickerinir, 3 N. U. 41 "i ; Clatliiii r. Rosenberg. 42 
Mo. 439; Ketelium r. Watson, 24 111. o91. 

* It has been held in the followinj; cases that the retention of pos-cs- 
sion by the vendor is only presiuuptive evidence of fraud. "Warner v. 
Norton, 20 How. 448 ; Ilorabeek r. Vanmetre, 9 Ohio, 1.j3 ; Collins v. 
Iklyere, 10 Ohio, 547; Reed r. Jewett, 5 Greenl. 90; Ulnicr v. Hills, 8 
Grccnl. 320; I'.rooks v. Powers, 15 Mass. 244; Bartlett r. Williai::s, 1 
Pick. 288; Hanford r. xirtehor, 4 Hill, 271 ; Thompson v. Blandiard, 4 X. 
Y. 303; Terry r. Celcher, 1 Bailey, 508; Davis r. Tunier, 4 Gratt. 422; 
Forkner v. Stuart, G Gratt. 197; Callen r. Thonipsou, 3 Yerg. 475; Manly 
r. Ki'ilough, 7 Ycr-;. 440; Viek v. Ki'ys, 2 Hayw. 120; Foley v. Kniglit, 
4 Blackf. 420; Watson v. Williams, 4 Blackf. 20; Miller t. Pancoast, 
4 N. Y. 303; Beers v. Dawsou, 8 Geo. 550; Kuykcndall r. McDonald, 
15 Mo. 410; Bi-jant v. Kelton, 1 Tex. 415; Morgan t. Republic, 2 Tex. 
273; Livingston v. Littell. 15 Wis. 221; Bullis v. Borden. 21 Wis. 130; 
Ilobbs V. Bibb, 2 Stew. 54-330 ; Mayer v. Clark, 40 Ala. 259 ; Rankin v. 
HoUoway, 3 Smed. & Mar. 014 ; Conistock v. Rayford, 12 Smed. & Mar. 
309 ; Frield r. Simco, 2 Eng. 209. 

After a sale under an execution when a stranger is a purchaser, the 
property may be left in the possession of the vendor. Floytl i\ Goodwin, 
8 Yerg. 484; Andrews v. Brooks, 11 Ala. 953; Abney v. Kingsland, 10 
Ala. 355; Simerson v. Bank of Decatur, 12 Ala. 205; Garland v. Cham- 
bers, 11 Smed. & Mar. 337 ; Coleman v. Uank of Hamburg, 2 Strobh. Eq. 
285. 

Possession for a long time after a sale under an execution is fraudulent. 
Taylor v. :\Iills, 2 Edw. Ch. 318 ; Stover r. Farmers' & .^lerehant.-,' Bank, 8 
Smed. & ^Mar. 305. 

Want of possession is not presumptive of fraud if, from the circum- 
ttances of the property, possession can not be given. A familiar example 
of this doctrine is in the case of a sale of a ship or goods at sea where 
possession is dispensed with on the plain ground of its impossil)ility; and 
it is sutlicicnt if the vendee takes possession of the property within a 
reasonable time after its arrival in port. Conrad v. Atlantic Fire Ins. Co., 
1 Pet. 380 ; Portland Bank v. Stacey, 4 Mass. 001 ; Putnam v. Dutch, 8 
Mass. 287 ; Joy v. Scars, 9 Pick. 4. 



V 



212 TKAi I) I r«>N III 11! I) I'AirriKS. 

Transactions wliicli have for tluir olijcct tlic delcatinf]^ or 
defrnudinuj of crctlitoi-s niiit't bi; carefully «listini^uislic<l from 
Cii^cA wlicre a sjilo, or assi^nmciit, or utluT cnnvcvance merely 
amounts to i^iving a i>reference to one creditor, or to ono set 
of creditors, over anotlier, or where the assi«;nme:'.t or convey- 
ance is made for tlie henctit of all crc<lit'>rs. The law tolerates 
assiijnments giving one creditor a preference over anotlier. * 
Tlie fact that an assignment may have been expressly made 
with the intent to defeat the claim of a particular creditor is 
of no consequence either at common law or under the statute 
of Elizabeth, if the consideration be adetpiate.* Under the 
bankrupt law, however, the transfer by a man of the whole, or 
the bulk, nr even a jiart of his property to a creditor in con- 
sideration of an antecedent debt is fraudulent, if made volun- 
tarily and in contemplation of baukru[)tcy.' 

' Ilolbird f. Amlorpon, 6 T. R. '2:'.5 ; WolvcrhnniptnnandStnfTordshireBftnk- 

Kstwick t'. fai laud. T) T. 11 4'JO; in;? Co. r. Mnrstnn, 7 IF. it N. 1 18. But 

(;r<ca» v. C<i(.kL', U lift. <fc IJe. 2:>r> ; see 15ott v. Siiiitli, 'Jl Doav. Ml. 

Pi.k>lock t>. LvstcT, 3 il. it S. :i71; "Smith v. Caunun, U K. A B. 35, 

Wodd r. Dixie.'? (i- B. 8'.t2 ; Hal.- r. Bitth-ston t>. Cooke, tj E. tt B. 298; 

tialoon Omnibus Co., 4 Drew. Ti'.ii ; Youn;^ «;. Fletcl\er, 3 II. »k C. 732, wi/ru. 



* Tompkins r. "Wliceler, 10 Pet. 103 ; M.irbury v. Brooks, 7 Wlairt. 
550; B. c. 11 Wheat. 78; ^lurray v. Rij.'.irs, l.j Johns. 571; Greon f. Tan- 
mr. K Met. 411 ; Skipwith r. Cunningham, 8 Leigh, 271 ; U. 8. Bank r. 
Ilatli, 4 n. Mon. 4i:J. 

An assignment for the benefit of creditors exacting releases is valid. 
Bra-sluar r. We.st, 7 Pet. CitS; Lippincott r. Barker, 3 Binney, 174; Pier- 
pont r. Graham, 4 Wanh. (Penn.) 2:J3 ; Ilalsey r, Whitney, 4 Miueon, 230; 
Niolen r. Doughiss, 2 Hill's Ch. 44;J; Ashunt r. Martin, 9 Port. 5(50; Vose 
r. Iloleoml). :J1 .Mi-. 407 ;* Ileydoek r. Stanhope, 1 ("iirt. 471; Pierce r. 
Jackson. 1 H. I. 'i'> \ Dockray r. I)o< kray, 3 H. I. 547; Rankin r. Lodor, 
21 .\la. abO; .McCall r. Hinkiey. 4 Gill, 128; Kettlcwell r. Stewart, 8 Gill, 
472; eontra, Wakeman t. Grover, 4 Paige, 28; 8. c. 11 Wend. 187 ; Amos 
r. Blunt, 5 Paige, 113 ; Ingraham r. Wheeler, Ct. 277 ; Atkinson r, Jor- 
din, 5 Ohio, 2'j:{; Ilyslop r. (lark, 14 Johns. 458 ; Austin r. Clark, 20 
Johii.s. 412; Haven r. Hiclrird-on, 5 N. II. li:J; The Watchman, Ware, 
2:52; Conkling r Carnon, 11 111. 50ij ; Xcabit c. Digby, lli III. ya7; Miller 
V. Couklin, 17 Geo. 430. 



FiiAii) iroN Tiiii;i) i'AKTn:s. 213 

An assi^^Mimt'iit by :i nian of his i)n»i)C'rty for the hoiicfit of 
his creditors is valid, and will bo HUi)i)orted, j.rcjvided the 
deed be hond Ji>Ic, for the benefit of all the creditors, and tliere 
be an unconditional surrender by the debtor of all his ju-o))- 
crty and eirect,^.* Dut a deed which the debtor has a power 
to revoke, and attempts to use as a shiehl a^'ainst his creditors, 
is' fraudulent and void against creditors who are affected by 
the deed, notwithstanding the deed upon the face of it pur- 
ports to be for the benefit of all the creditors.'^ So also is an 
instrument void as against creditors, if there is any provision 
contained in it which shows that the debtor, at the time of its 
execution, intended to prevent an immediate application of 
his property in favor of his creditors.'* 

•Smith r. Hurst, lOIIa. 30; Riclics * Brigham v. Tillinghast, 3 Kern, 

f. Evans C. tfc V. CJl. (Amer.j, 215. 

* Smith V. Hurst, Hi Ha. CO. 



* The fact that the mortgagor is allowed to sell the mortgaged goods 
at retail after the execution of the mortgage, is merely a badge of fraud. 
Frost V. Warren, 42 N. Y. 204 ; Summer.^ v. Roos, 42 :Mi.ss. 749. 

A mortgage which contains a stipulation reserving to the mortgagor 
the power to scUthc mortgaged property for his own benefit, is fraudu- 
lent. Edzell V. Hart, 9 N. Y. 21; Lang tJ. Lee, 3 Rand. 410; Collins r. 
^NIcElroy, IG Ohio, 547; Shcppard v. Tuq^n, 3 Gratt. 373; Addington v. 
Etheridgc, 12 Gratt. 436; Brooks v. AVimcr, 20 Mo. 503; Walter v. 
Wimer, 24 Mo. 63; Freeman v. Rauson, 5 Ohio St. R. 1 ; Ilarman v. Abbey, 
7 Ohio St. R. 218; Chophard ». Bayard, 4 3Iinn. 533; Place r. Lixugwortli, 
13 Wis. 029; Armstrong ». Tuttle, 34 Mo, 432; Bamet c. Fergus, 51 111. 

352. 

When there is an agreement out of the mortgage that the mortgagor 
shall continue in possession, and buy and sell as usual, the mortgage is 
fraudulent. Gardner r. iMcEwen. 19 X. Y. 123 ; Russell t. Wines, 37 N. Y. 
591 ; Ward v. Lowry, 17 Wend. 432 ; Delaware v. Ensign, 21 Barb. 35. 

An agreement that the mortgagor shall continue in possession and sell 
the mortgaged property, and apply the proceeds to the satisfaction of the 
debt which the mortgage is given to secure, is not fraudulent. Conkling 
V. Shelley, 28 N. Y. 3G0; Ford v. Williams, 24 X. Y. 359; Miller r. Lock- 
wood, 32 N. Y. 293; Saunders r. Turbcville, 2 Humph. 272; Abbott r. 
Goodwin, 20 Me 408; Contra Ticknor v. Wisnall, 9 Ala. 3'»5. 



214 rRATl) ITdN TIIIIM) TAiniKS. 

Tlu' s;um' jxilicy ct" ntlurdiiii; |>nitc(f i(»ii to tlio riixlits of 
creditors pervades the provisions of tlic statute 3 i*^- 1 Will. iS: 
M. c. 14, respectini^ fraudulent devises in fraud of cri-ditors ;* 
but the statute does n(»t reacli conveyances, whetlier V(»hintary 
or not, whicli tlie dehtor may make in liis lifetime.' A debtor 
may alienate the land notwithstanding the existence of debts, 
or he may by will make it e(|uitable assets, or he may devise 
it for the ]>ayment of a jiarticular debt on sini]>le eontraet, and 
so withdraw it from specialty creditors altoL^cther. The cred- 
itors may, by takinic proccedinc^s, obtain ])ayment out of the 
descended (»r (levisL'<l real estates in the liands of the heir or 
devisee; but if such ])roceedinijs are not taken, the heir or 
devisee may alienate, and in the hands of the alienee, whether 
upon a common purchase or on a settlement, even with notice 
that there arc debts unpaid, the land is not liable, although 
the heir reinaing personally liable to the extent of the value of 
the land alienated.' The alienee, however, may be restrained 
at the suit of creditors from partin<j: with the money.* 

Another case of fraud ni)on creditors is where upon a com- 
position by a debtor with his creditors, particular creditors, by 
means of secret baru^ains, secure to themselves undue advan- 
tages over the rest of the creditors. The ])rinciple of all 
comi»osition deeds being that the debtor .<hall make a true 
representation of his a.ssets, and that the creditors shall stand 
upon an ecpial footing and observe good faith towards each 
other, any secret arrangements between the debtor and a ]iar- 
ticular creditor, wherelty he is jdaced in a more favored 
]>osition than the rest of the creditors, is a fraud upon the 

• Sco Jeremy on Kq. Jnr. bk. n. pt. 123; DilkoB i-. Uroadmcnd. 2 D. F. A J. 
2, c. :'., ? -1 iip.ilS, -Ih'.. S.T alxo (Viiipo rn'.d. Hut Hfo I'iiiiiii i'. IiimiU, 1 .Muc. «t 
v. Crc-^HW.ll. i.. K. 2 Cli. A\>\>. I 12. U. i I'.'. 

» 1 F..nl.. Kq. b. 1. r. 1. ^ 1 1 n * Grocn v. Lowes, 8 Bro. C. C. 217. 

• Bpnckinnii v. Tinilin-ll, H Sim. 2.'i3; 
Riclmrd»on r. llorUni, 7 Ik-uv. 112, 



FRAUD UPON Tiii:ii) i'aktii:h. 'Jir» 

otliors.' * III niddeni times, the saiiu; I'lilc liiis Ix'cii acted <ni 
at lau-;^ 

Viiv the like reasons, any ai^reeiiieiit made l)y an infiolvent 
delitor with liis assignee, by uhich tlie estate of tlie insolvent 
is to 1)C held in trust hy the assignee to secure certain hcnefits 
for himself and his family, such as to pay certain annuities to 
himself and his uife out of tlie rents or proceeds of the prop- 
erty assigned, and to ii]>ply the surjilus to the extinction of 
deht due to the assignee, is void as being a contrivance in 
fraud of creditors.^ 

A creditor, however, holding a security for his ovm debt, 
may stipuhite to have the benefit of it in addition to the 
amount of the composition offered by a debtor to his creditors, 
l)ut he must liold liimself entirely aloof from the other cred- 
itors, or distinctly communicate with them on the subject, if 
he at all acts in common with them.* 

FRAUD UPON MARRIAGE ARTICLES. 

Another class of frauds upon third parties, which will be 
relieved against in equity, is Avhere persons after doing acts 

' Jackniftii V. Mitclicll, 13 Vcs. 581 ; Barker, 1 L. R. Eq. 139. Comp. Lee v. 

Sadler v. Jnckson, 15 Vcs. 52; Coleman Lockliart, 3 M. it V. 315. 

V. Waller. 3 V. tt J. 215 ; Cullingworth •' Cocksliott v. Bennett. 2 T. R. T63 ; 

V. Lloj-d, 2 Beav. 385, and cases cited Kni:;;ht v. Hunt. 5 BinLf. 432 ; Lewis i". 

395 n'.; Pendleburv r. Walker, 4 Y. <fc Jones, 4 B. <fc C. 500; llowdcn v. 

C. 434; Kx-parlc Oliver, 4 Dej;. & Sni. IJaiich. 11 A. tt E. 1033. 

302; Mare v. landlord, 1 GitF. 288; MlcNeill t>. Cabill, 2 Bligh, 228. 

Slare V. Warner, 3 Gitf. 100; Wood v. * Cullingworth «. Lloyd, 2 Beav. 385. 



* 1 Smith V. Stone, 4 G. & J. 310 ; Daughty r. Savnge, 28 Ct. 146 ; Case 
r. Garrisli, 15 Pick. 49; Ramsdcll r. Edgarton, 8 Met. 227; Lntlirop r. 
King, 8 Cusli. 382 ; Brock r. Cole, 4 Sandf. 79; CaiToU r. Shields, 4 E. D. 
Smith 466 ; Iliggins r. ^Maj-er, 10 How. Pr. 363 ; Lawrence v. Clark, 36 X. 
Y. 128; Pinnco v. Iliggins, 13 Abb. Pr. 334; Beach v. Ollcndorf, 1 Hilt. 
41 ; Smith r. Owens, 21 Cal. 11 ; Bartleman v. Douglass, 1 Cranch's C. C. 450. 

Tiie rule has no application to a case where each creditor acts not only 
for himself but in opposition to every other creditor, all equally relying 
upon their vigilance to obtain priority. Clark r. "White, 12 Pot. 178. 

A concealment of a portion of his assets by the debtor will make 



'JIG n:.\ri) ri-oN Tim:i> iv\i:tii:s. 

re(jiiiiT(l ti» lie (loiic oii a tn-afy of iiiarri:iL'c, rciidiT tlutse actrt 
iinavailin!X l)v intciiiii: into other secivt a^rivciiu'iits, or doro- 
pUe IVtMii tliosi« ju'ts or otlifrwise coiiiniit a lV:iu<l iiimii tlie 
relatives or IViends of one of tlio contracting j>arties;' as wlicru 
a j>arent declines to consent to a inarria<;(« on account of the 
intended husUan*! ln-ini; in delit, and tin- lirotlicr of the latter 
gives a bond fi-r the dcht to jirocure .^nch conM-nt, and the 
intended husband then j,'ives a eounter-l»ond to his brother io 
indemnify him against the first bond."'' So, also, where a 
creditor of the intended husband concealed liis own debt and 
misrepresented to the lady's father the amount of the debts of 
the intended Inisband, the transaction was treated as a fraud 
u])on the marria<;e, and the creditor was restrained from 
enlbrcinij^ his debt at law against the liusband after the mar- 
riage.' So, also, where a brother on the marriage of his sister 
let her have a sum of money }>rivately that her fortune might 
appear to be as much as was insisted on by the other side, and 
the sister gave a bond to the brother to repay it, the bond 
was set aside.* So, also, where the money due by an intended 
husband npon a mortgage was represented by the mortgagee 
t<j the relations of the wife to be niurli less than was really 
due, he was not allowed to recover mc»re tlian he had re]>re- 
scnted the debt to amount to."^ 

Another case of fraud u])on marriage articles is where a 
father, w1m» had, on tlu- marriage of his daughter, covt-nanted 
that he wouhl njiou liis iKath leave her certain tcmiMcnts, and 
would als<t by his will give and leave her a full and e(|ual 

' IVyton r. nin<!\vcll, 1 Vrrn. 210. niS. Sec D'An)inc v. D'.Ml.ino. in 

' Ueclmnn v. Ittthiian. 1 Vcrn. ai8; Vi-h. 121 ; Morris r. CliirkKon, 1 J. it W. 

Turtoii V. iW'nson. 1 1'. Wiim. IIm; ; Scolt 107. 

r. Scolt. 1 Cox, liOO; I'uliiier i'. Niiivc, * (Jnlcf. Ltiulo, 1 Vcrn. 478; I.jiin]co 

11 Vc«. Ifirt. ». lianinan, 2 Vcrii. AW. 
•Ntvillo w. WilkiiiMm, 1 IJro, C. C. * Uurretl r. Wtllrt, rrcc. Ch. 131. 



Ilic flcofl void. PliPttiplnrp r. Rnylcs, 4 Mason, 812; RichnnlH r. Hunt, 
Yt. 201 ; Jucktion r. lloilg. s, Jl .Md. tOy ; Stving r. Gale, 2W lud. IbO. 



rUAUD LTON TllllLO I'AUTlIiS. 217 

share witli lier brotlier.s and listers of all his personal estatoH, 
transfers afterwards during his life a very larf^e ])orti<>n of his 
jiersonal property to his son, retaining tlie (li\ idcnds for liis 
<i\\n lit'c. * Covenants of this sort do ni»t jiroliiliit :i parent 
from niakiiiLT any disposition of his ]»ro[)erty dniint,^ liis life- 
time anion^^ his eliildrcn more favoraljle to one than another; 
hut they do prohibit a man from doing any aets whieh are 
designed to defeat or defraud tlie covenant. A parent may, if 
he pleases, notwithstanding the covenant, make an a1)sohite 
gift to a chilli ; hut the gift must he an absolute and unqualified 
one, and must not be a mere reversionary gift, which saves the 
income to the parent during his own life.^ 

FRAUD UPON THE MARITAL RIGHTS. 
Another class of transactions which will be relieved against 
as being in fraud of the marriage contract are conveyances 
made by an unmai-ricd woman of her property, during the 
treaty of marriage without the knowledge of her intended hus- 
band, in contravention of his marital rights, or in disappoint- 
ment of his just expectations.'* Several circumstances appear 

'Jones V. JInitin, 3 Anst. 882, 5 darrl i'. Snow, 1 Riiss. 485 ; EnHand t/. 

Vcs. 205 n. ; 8 Bro. 1*. C. 242. See Ran- Downs, 2 Ik-av. 522 ; Taylor v. I'wjih. 1 

dnll f. Willis. 5 Vcs. 201; M'Xeill v. Ha. G<)8; Llewellin v. I'ol'liold, KSni. 

Cahill, 2 Blit,^li, 228. Conip. iStocken c. it. G. 37G; Downcs v. Jiniiin^^s, 32 

Stocken, 4 M. tfc C. 95; liell v. Clarke, Beav. 290. See Loader v. Clark, 2 

25 Beav. 430. Mnc. ifc G. 387; Chambers c. Crabbc, 

' Jones V. Martin, 3 Anst. 882, 5 Vcs. 34 Beav. 457. A secret scttieinent by 

265 n. a woman of her j)roperty dnrini; a 

'Lance v Norman, 2 Cb. Rep. 41; trenly of inarri:i<^c, is not necL~s;irily 

Lady Strathmore i'. Bowes, 2 Bro. C void at law. Dou (/. Kichards v. Lewis, 

C. 345, 2 Cox, 33, 1 Ves. Jr. 22; God- 11 C. B. 1035. 



* Tucker r. Andrews, 13 Me. 124; Ramsay v. Joyce, 1 ^Ic3Iullan's Ch. 
23G; Black v. Jones, 1 A. K. Marsh. 312; Manes r. Diiraut. 2 Rich. Eq. 
404 ; Linker r. Smith, 4 Wash. C. C. 224. 

There is no distinction whether tlie conveyances be to children or to a 
atranjicr. Ram^ay c. Joyce, 1 3IeMullan"s Ch. 23(5. 

A conveyance made by a woman in discharge of the moral duty of 
providing for the children of a former marriage, is not considered a fraud 
upon the intended husband, although it is concealed from him. Green »v 
Goodall, 1 Cold. 404. 

15 



218 rn\rn i ro\ tiiiim) i'\i:tii:?^. 

to have l^^^n tlimiixlit niateriul as mirativiiii; tlio iinj)utetl 
fniud : sjicli, for iM>tain.'i', as the ii<»\cr(y of the Iiushaiid, the 
fact that lie has inatk' no settloinciit on the witV", thu fuUilnient 
of a moral ohlipitioii, as in tlie case of a st'ttltMiiont upon the 
clilldri'n of a furnicr niaj'riaujo, or of a bond i^ivcn to secure a 
debt contracted for a vahiahlo consideration, or the fad of the 
ipioranec of the husl)and that liis wife possessed the property.' 
Tliere can he no (h»uht that any of these facts wouhl he a <;ood 
ground for insisting that there shouhl he a settlement, but it 
is not so easy to understand why tlu^v should constitute reasons 
for practising concealment upon him, m- for treating such con- 
cealment as immaterial.* If both the property and the mode 
of its conveyanee, pending the marriage treaty, were concealed 
from the intended husband, there still is or may be a fraud prac- 
tised on him. It is true that the non -acquisition of the prop- 
erty is no disappointment, but still his legal right is defeated, 
and the conveying away of the property fur the benefit of a 
tliird person, or the vesting and continuance of a sej)arate 
power in the wife over property which ought to have been his, 
and which is, without his consent made in(lei)endent of liis 
control, is a sur[»rise upon him, aiul might, if i)reviously 
known, have induced him to abstain from the marriage.' 
The mere fact, however, of concealment, or rather the non- 
communication to him, is not necessarily, and undi-r all cir- 
cumstances, eijuivalent to frau<l. In the abst-nce of anv 
representation as to specific property, there is no im]'Iied eon- 
tract on the ])art of the lady that her ])roperty shall not be in 
any way diminisheil before the marriage: but it is fur the 
court to determine in each case whether having regard to the 

'limit r. MiiUIkwh. 1 Vcrn. 408; r.:{3; Lndv Strntlimoro i>. nowcs, 2 Bro. 

Tnylor v. I'u-li, 1 llii. I'.'w. Sec- Downea C, C. JtlVi. « liro. 1'. C. .127, 1 Vcs, 

9. .Ienniti(;«. '.i'S IJiiiv. '.".to. Jr. i»'i. 

* Kntrlniul V. I»<>wiih, '1 Hciiv. r»22, ' C'.irl ton «. 1-nrl of Dorsof, 2 Vcrn. 

02'J: Tuylor i. I'u;,'li, 1 lla. (Ins, r,|:i; 17; (Hi.l.lnril r. Miow. 1 l{nn«<. 4S!i; 

CbniiiJ«TH V. Crnlti.f. ."11 Hciiv. I.'i7. Kn:,'l:iii>l »•. I)«)wn><, 2 Ucav. 022, 529; 

Sco I'oulson r. Wtlliiijjlon. 2 1'. Wiua. Duwocb v, Jcmiiiiif-, ^2 Ik-iiv. 2110. 



ruAi 1) rroN tiiii:i> j-auties. 1!1'.> 

oondilion of the ])arties and the otlicr attuinlaiit circuiiiPtanccK, 
a transaction C(inii)lainc'(l of hy the liusband sliould be treated 
as fraudulent.' * AVherc the liusband has so conrlucted hini- 
60lf towards tlic iiitciidcd ^\•il(• that she cannot without din- 
Crraco retire fnun tlie iiian-inirc, as whei'c he had induced her 
to cohabit with him before marriai^e, a settlement made by 
her of her property Avithout his knowledge, will not be treated 
as In fraud of his marital rights.^ 

The equity in favor of the liusband docs not arise, unless it 
can be clearly nuide out that at the time of the conveyance of 
her property l)y the wife there was an engairement of mar- 
riage between them.' A conveyance to be fraudulent must be 
made in contemplation of a particular marriage.'' Xor has the 
liusband any c(juity to set it aside, if before the marriage he 
has notice that the intended wife has dealt in some way with 
her property. It is essential to tiie apjilication of the princi- 
ple that the husband should, up to the moment of the mar- 
riage, have been kept in ignorance of the transaction. If he 
has notice before the marriage that the lady intended to make 
a settlement of her property, and nothing took place to justify 
a belief on his part, that at the time of the marriage no such 
settlement had l)een made, he has no equity to set it aside, 
although he may not be proved to have been aware of any set- 
tlement having been actually made. If the husband has notice 
that the property has been in some way dealt with and makes 
no inrpiiry, he is bound by what has been done. It is enough 
that he had notice of the intended settlement, though he may 
not have been aware of the trusts.' 

' De Slannoville v. ("ompton. 1 V. ife * EDjland v. Down*. 2 Beav. 522; 

B. or)4 ; yt. (Jeoi-f^e i-. Wake, 1 M. »i: K. Griirffs i'. Staplcc, 2 I've:. & 8. 572. 

310; Taylor v. Tu-li, 1 Ila. (loS. * Mabcr v. Hobbs. 2 Y. A C. 317. 

' Taylor v. Piigli, 1 II:i. 008. =■ St. George v. Wake, 1 M. & K. CM; 



* Caldwell r. Gilli.-J. 2 Port. oiG; Crump r. Dudley, 3 Call. o07; M'Clure 
c. Miller, 1 Bailcv's Ch. 107. 



220 ritAin t I'oN Tim:n pahtiks. 

Il'a lioiul bi' ijivt'ii I'V a woman Ik fore mai*riatri> to prcure a 
debt contraotoil for vahiabli' consick-ratioii, tluri.' is iu» Iraud on 
thi' liusbaml tliontjli it bu concealed tVom him.' 

Tlie rijxht of the Imsband to imj)cach u transaction, as 
being in fraud of liis marital rights, may be lost by accjui- 
cscence or drlay :' iicr have his re])rescntatives atti-r liis death 
any equity against tlu* wife, if lie docs not before his death 
discover the fraud upon his marital rights.** 

MARRIAGE AND PLACE BUOKAGE BONDS. 

Another class of transactions which are relieved against as 
being in fraud of third parties, arc contracts or agreements to 
negotiate a marriage between two j)arties for a certain compen- 
sation.* In some early cases, Grisley v. Lother,' and a case 

Fni'land r. Downs. 2 Beav. 5'J-J ; Griirgs G. 382 ; Downe3 v. Jcniiinjjft, 32 Bcav. 

»'. Staplcc, 2 1 »(•!». <fc S. .')72, \Vrii'Icy V. 290. See infra. 

.swaiiisun, ;{ I>o<r. tfc S. ITiS. See Pri- * Grazt-brook r. rcrcival, II .lur. 

dc-anx r. Lonsdale. 1 1). .1. it S. 433. 1103. 

' Blanthut v. Foster, 2 Vis. 201. * See "Worsley v. Do Mattos, 1 Burr. 

' De Manniville v. Conijiton, 1 V. it 4Ti"'. ;>"• Lord Manstield. 
B. 354; Loader v. Clarke. 2 Mac. <k * Hob. 10, 



♦ A conveyance made liy a man in contemplation of marriage, for the 
purpose of defraudinuc his wife, is void. Petty r. Petty, t B. Mori. 21.*; 
Swain r. Perine, 5 Johns. Ch. 482; Smith r. Smith, 2 Ilalst. Ch. 515; 
Dearman r. Deannan. 10 Ind. 191 ; Tate r. Tate, 1 Dcv. ifc Bat. Eq. 22. 

There can be no doubt of the i)Owcr of a husband to dispose absolutely 
of his projx-rty durint,' his life iiKlepiiuUntly of the concurrence, and exon- 
erated from any claim of his wife, provided the tninsaction Ls not men-ly 
Colorable and be unattended with circumstances indicative of fraud upon 
the rights of the wife. If the disposition Vry the husband Ix* hnh'i julr, 
and no right i.s reser\'ed to him, though made to defeat tlie right of the 
wife, it will be good againnt her. Dunnock r. I)unnf)ek, 3 Mil. Ch. 140; 
Cameron r. Cameron, 10 Smed. «& Mar. o5)4 ; Lightfoot r, Colgin, 5 Munf. 
42; Stewart r. Stewart, .■> ( t. HIT; llolnus i. Holmes, 3 Paige, :50;J. 

If the disposition of the j)rop(rty by the husband is a mere device or 
contrivance by which, not parting with the absolute dominion over the 
pn»i)erty during his life, he setks at his death to deny his widow the hharc 
in hi.s estate which the law assigns to her, it will be inellectual ugainst 
her. IIay« r. Henr>-, I Md. Ch. :J:{7; Tliayer r. Thayer, It Vt. I<i7 ; Kcy- 
Dolds r. Vance, 1 Ileisk. 34 1. 



FKAII) I I'ON TlllUl) I'AKTIi:S. 221 

t'itt'<l ill Hall V. I'ctltur/ a inaiTiai^e broka^^o bond was bold 
j^oodatlaw; but tlit'se cases t-aiiiiot be considered law. The 
better opinion woiihl seem to bo that a iMan-iai,'e bntkaL'o bond 
is void at law upun <,^-((iiiiils n[' ]»u!»lic ]»olicy. In dpiity it, has 
lonii; been settled that snch bonds will be relieved ai^ainst, as 
well upon gronnds of public policy, as because they tend to 
induce the exercise of undue influcnoo in the promotion of 
niarriai:;es, and arc a fraud on the families of those who are so 
induced to nian-y without taking the advice of their friends.^ 
Marriage brokage contracts are so adverse to public policy as 
not to be capable of confirmation;^ and even money paid 
under tliem may be reclaimed.* It makes no difference that 
the marriage is between pL-rsons of e(j[ual rank, age, and for- 
tune, for the contract is cipially open to objection upon 
general principles as being of danger(jus consequence.* The 
principle has even gone further, and a bond given for assisting 
a clandestine marriage has been set aside, though given volun- 
tarily after the marriage and without any previous agreement 
for the purpose.' 

Upon a similar ground, if a parent or guardian, or any 
pei*son nearly connected to a party, privately connive with a 
third person, and agree to procure a marriage between such 
parties in consideration of a certain compensation, or agree 
upon payment of a certain sum to consent to such marriage, 
the contract is utterly void upon the ground that it is a bar- 



' 3 Lev. 412. for their scrnces to a limiteJ cxteni. 

* Hall V. Totter. 3 Lev. 412, Show. P. Story's Eq. Jiir. 2()i>. 

C. 7C>; Arundel r.Trevillian, 1 Cli. Rep. 'Cole v. Gibson, 1 Ves. 503, 600, 

47; Law v. Law, Ca. t. Talb. 14ii, 142; 507; Roche v. O'Brien, 1 Ba. <fe Be. 

Cole ". Gibson, 1 Ves. 503; Vauxiiall 358. 

Britlije Co. t/. Spencer, Jac. C7 ; Boyn- * Smith v. Brunin;^, 2 Vern. 392; 

ton I'. IluUbard, 7 Mass. (Amor.), 112. Goklsmith v. Brunin^, 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 89. 

The civil law does not seem to have * Hall »•. Potter, 3 Lev. 411, I Fonb. 

held contract? ot this sort in such se- bk. 1, c. 4, i; 10. 

vcre rebuke, for it allowed proffinf'C, * Williamson v. Gibson, 2 Sch. d; Let 

or match-makers, to receive a reward 357. 



-'-2 rKAii) rroN rim;i> i'aktii'.s. 

piin in contnivcntioii of tlu' rii^hts of third parties, whoso 
interests are thus ccuitroUed and sacrificed.' 

Of a kindrctl nature to niarriai;^ broka^o contracts, and 
:?overne<l by the same rule, aro cases where bDiids are i^ivcn, 
i>r other agreements made as a reward f(»r usini; inlluence and 
power over another person ti» induce him to make a will in 
favor of the obliircc ami for his benefit, for all such contracts 
fend to the deceit and injury uf third parties, and encourage 
artifice and improper attemi)t to control the exercise of their 
free judgment.'* Hut such cases arc carefully to bo distin- 
miished from tlmse in which there is an afxreement among 
heirs or other near relatives to share the estate equally be- 
tween them, whatever may be the M'ill made by the testator; 
for such an agreement is generally made to suppress fraud 
and undue influence, and cannot truly be said to disappoint 
the testator's inteiition, if he does not impose any restriction 
on his devisee.' 

Of a kindred nature to marriage brokage contracts aro 
office brokage bonds. Com Is of this sort are fraudulent, and, 
therefore, void upon grounds of public policy, the tendency of 
such bonds being to introduce unfit pei-sons into i)laces of 
great public trust, and to defraud the public of the service of 
the most efficient candidates or officers.* 

BONDS TO :srAUKV. 
A bond given by a young woman secretly to a man, condi- 
tioned to ]»ay him a sum of money, if she did n<»t marry him 
on the death of tiic parent or other iiidi\i«lu il from whom she 
has expectancies, but kept secret fpim lilm, is in eipiity looked 

' ppvtnn p. mn<lw<-ll. 1 V<rn. '.ilK; crud v. Wdhoroil, ih. 183; Story'a E(). 

StribblehJll v. IJrill. -* V<rn. ll'i; Kwit Jur. 'Ji'.n, 7«5. 

f. Allt-n, ilt. fiHH. 1 F..11I1. i:.|. Ilk. I.e. ' Liiw I'. Liiw. Cn. t. Talh. lift. 3 P. 

4. ;} 11 ; Story'n Kq. Jur. \H>t'>, 'Ji'.T. W'lun. :i'il ; Morri-< i-. M'i'iilloclj, 2 Kdon, 

» I)i-I«'nliniii I'. Ox. 1 Vi'x. ".'"rt. I."'; Ilatinin'^'lon v. l)u ( •|inl.'l. 1 Urn. 

» lUcklc;y f. N.'wlaml. '.i I'. Wm. IHI; *'. C. IJ»; llirtw.ll r. Il.iriw.-ll 1 Vo4, 

IlarwooJ i'. IVikc, '.; .-tiiii. \'J'l; Wctli- bll; 0«boriiu r. WilliaiiiH, 18 Vc«. 37l>. 



FRAUD LTON 'IIIIKD I'AKTIKS. 223 

on as a IVaud on the ]):ircnt or otlior imlividiial, from wlioin bIig 
lia^ c'X[)i>rtation.s, wIid (lisa[)[)rovL'(l of tliu iiiarria^a-, and nii^lit 
1)0 niisk'(l into iiiakiii:^ a [)rovisi<)n lor her, wliicli, had ho 
known of (lie ImukI, lie inii:;ht have done in tiiich a iiiauner as 
wouM have pruventud thu marriage.^ 

FRAUD IN WITUIIOLDIXG CONSENT TO :\rARRIAGE. 

Gifts and legacies are often bestowed U[)on perMjn.s upon 
condition that they shall not inirry without the consent of 
jmrents, guardians, or otlier confidential persons. If such con- 
sent to the marriage is withheld from a corrupt motive, the 
Court of Chancery may interfere. It has been contended that 
if the person whoso consent is ref[uired is interested in with- 
holding it, he must show a reason for his dissent. But if tlie 
author of the trust chooses to require the consent of a person 
whom he knows at the time to have an interest in refusing it, 
it is difficult to conceive an equity interfering with his choice. 
At all events no equity will arise if the trustee has meant to 
act honestly, though his decision may nut be the same as that 
at which the court would have arrived.^ 

FRAUD EN RESPECT OP EXPECTANCEE3. 

It would appear to have been partly, if not mainly, on tlie 
ground that a bargain with an expectant heir in respect of his 
expectancy during the life, and without the knowledge of the 
person from whom the expectancy was looked for, was a fraud 
on the latter, that a bargain -with an expectant heir was liable 
to be opened and set aside upon the ground merely of under- 
value.' A fair and hond fide agreement, however, between 
expectants to share equally, or in a certain manner, the ]'r>',)- 

• Woodhouse v. Shoplej-. 2 Atk. 536; Sw. 140, 147; Kins: Ilnmlot, 2 M. «t K. 
Cock V. Richards, 10 Ves. 429. 43(). But see now 31 Virt, c 4, 'w/.r.*, 

* Clarke v. Parker, 19 Ves. 1. p. 187 n. 
» Duvis V. Duke of Marlborough, 2 



'y^ \ 



ritAT'T) I I'dN TiiiKi) i'.\irrii:s. 



crty which miirht hi- K It thi'iii, althoiijjh t'iitcM\'<l into behiiul 
the back of tho pcrtjitii iVoiii whom the i'xj>cctaucy is looked 
for, has always been luld \ali(l in e(iuity.' 

FlJAl I) IN HKSPECT OF SALES IIV AlCiTIOX. 

AixreciiU'iits whereby ])artii's for tlu' inirjxisc of ]»revcntin^ 
competition at an auction, and of depressini,' the value of the 
pr(»]»crty below its market ]>ri('e, eniCiiLTt' H'^t to bid ai^ainst each 
other, have been held in some American cases to operate as a 
fraud upon third parties.'^* ]>ut it is dilKcuIt to see upon what 
j>rinciple it can be maintaincMl tliat a mere agreement between 
two ])ersons, each desirous of elfeeting tlie purcliaso of an 



•Bcckloyi'. Xowlnml,2r. Wms. 1S2; 29; Donlin r. Wnnl, C Johns. (Amor.) 

Wftluri'd V. Withered, 2 Sim. 1«;{; 194; Will)iir r. llow, 8 .lohiis. (Amer ) 

Ilnrwojd v. Tooke, ih. 192; Hyde r. 4 II; lluwley i*. (.'ramer, 4 (.'ow. (Amcr.) 

White. r> Sim. ri24 ; Lyde v. Myim, 1 717; Hrislmiie v. Adniiiri, 15 Comst. 

M. <V K. CSIJ. See Hiiuljhtuii c. Lees, 1 (Aiiier.) 12'.t; Story's j:<i. Jur. 29:1. 

Jur. N. S. S02 ; lleaii v. Tonge, 9 Ila. See also Fuller v. Ahruhiuua, C Moo. 

luo. . 310. 

• Jones V. Caswell, 3 Johns. (Amcr.) 



♦ Troup r. Wood, 4 Johns. Ch. 228; Grant r. Lioy.l, 12 Smed. & Mar. 
191 ; Martin r. Rank-tt, 5 Rich. 541 ; Wootcn v. Ilinklc, 20 Mo. 290; Dud- 
ley r. Little, 2 Oliin, COS; Piatt r. Oliver,! McClonn, 29.'i; CJuliok r. Ward, 
GUalst. H7; Martin r. IMight, 4 J. J. Marsh. 491. 

The law does not tolerate any influence likely to i>revent competition 
at judicial sales, and it aecords to every debtor the rhanres for a lair sale 
and full price. Cocks r. Izard, 7 Wall. 559. 

It is es.sential to the validity of tax sales, not merely that they sliould 
be conducted in conformity to the requirement of law, hut that tiiey 
should l>e eonducted with entire fairness. I'erfect freedom from all in- 
fluence likely to prevent eonipetilion in the Pah'shouhl he strictly e.KaclCvl. 
Slattr r. Maxwell, (J Wall. 20H. 

A Bale of real estate rn inusnc, instead of in separate panels, will only 
be Bct aside upon the jfroimd of fraud or prejudice to Boiue ono'.s rights. 
Hose r. M«ad, 5 (Jilman, 171. 

The mere fact that the purchase was maile liy an association forme! 
for the purpose of hiddin;;, does not make a sale void. If the object and 
puri)OHe i>f the association are, not to prevent competition, but to enable, 
or as an inducement to, the persons couiposin}^' il to partic ipale in the bi.l- 



FRAUD UPON TIIli:i) I'AItTIKS. liL'.'* 

estate, tliat they will not bid ai^aiust each otlier, but that oiMr 
hIkiU retire and leave the Held (»|»eii to the otlicr, can be held 
to invalidate the sale, and in two cases Itcioiv, our own courts, 
an ai;reenient to this ellect has been licid irxod.* 

The secret emplovnient by the owner of proj)erty of a 
puflier, or nnderbidder, at a sale by auction of the property, is 
at law a fraud upon hond fide bidders ; nor can the owner bid 
privately for his own property. All secret dealing on the j)art 
,of the seller is decnieil fraudulent. If he be unwilling that 
his goods shall be sold at an under price, he may order them to 
be set up at his own price or not lower, or lie may ])reviously 
declare as a condition of the sale, that it is subject to a reserved 
price.'* In cipiity, however, a vendor could lawfully, without 



' Gnlton V. Emiiss, 1 Coll. 213 ; Ro "^ Bexnell v. Christie, Cowp. .305 ; 

Cnrcw'.^ Estate, 2(> IJonv. 187. See also Ilowarl ,<. Castle, T. R. 012; Tlior- 

Phippen v. Sticliney, o Jletc. (Anicr.) nett r. Haines, 15 M. ik W. 307 ; Green 

3St ; Sncll v. Jones, 6 8erj. &, \\. v. Laverstocke, U C. B. N. S. 204. 
(Amer.) 1U2. 



ding, tlic sale will l)e uphold. Kearney v. Taylor, 15 IIow. 49t ; Goode v. 
Iluwkin, 3 Dcv. Eq. 30:3; Smith v. Greenlee, 2 Dev. 126; SmuU v. Jones, 
1 M. «fc S. 128; Phippcn v. Stickney, 3 Met. 387; contra, Thompson r. 
Davis, 13 John^ 112; Dudley v. Little, 1 Ohio, 50D; Switzer v. Skilcs, 3 
Oilman, 520 ; AVolf v. Luystcr, 1 Hall, 140. 

A purchaser who uses unfair means to prevent competition cannot hold 
the property. Newman v. Meek, 1 Freeman's Ch. 441 ; Johnston o. La 
Mutte, G Kich. Eq. 347; Plaster r. Burger, o Ind. 232. 

It is no fraud for a purchaser to declare that he intends to give the 
property to the debtor, or let him redeem, when such is really his intention. 
To make a purchase void, it must be i)roved that the prop;.'rty was ob- 
tained at an undue value and by a false representation. Dick r. Cooper, 
24 Penn. 217; Benedict v. Oilman, 4 Paige, o8 ; Brown v. Lynch, 1 Paige, 
147. 

* Towle 0. Lcavitt, 23 X. U. 3G0; MoncrielT r. Goldsborough, 4 II. & 
Mc. H. 281 ; Wolf p. Luyster, 1 Hall, 146; Wood v. Hall, 1 Dev. Eq. 411 ; 
Staines r. Shores, IG Penn. 200; Trust v. Delaplaine, 3 E. D. Smith, 219; 
Donaldson r. M'Roy, 1 Brown, 346; Smith r. Greenlee. 2 Dev. 120; Jen- 
kin? r. Ilogtr, 2 Const. K. 821; Baliam r. Bach, 13 La. 2s7; Woods r. 
Hall, 13 La. 411 ; Morelu-ad c. Iluut, 1 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 35. 



'J'JG rr.Mi) riM)N rimn) r.vuTir.s. 

any exj>ross stipulation, »ir witliuut iiiuUiii:; the fact j>ul»liely 
known, lix a ivsiTvi-il ju-icf ami rinjijoy a jH-rsnii to liiil lor 
liini, so as to prevent tho i)ropcrty ^oin^; undtT that j>ricu ; but 
if more than one ])er.son he oinj)loye(l to hiil, or ii the object 
of the eni[)h>ynient of a bidder be to run uj) and enhance tlio 
])rice, or if the sale profess to be without reserve and a bidder 
be nevertheless employed, there is a fiaud in equity as well as 
at law.^ Lord Cranworth, in Mortimer v. JJell,^ and Knight 
Druce, L. J., in AVoodward v. Miller,^ animadverted upon the 
inconvenience of there being a conflict between the rules at 
law and equity upon the subject, and said they considered the 
rule at law more salutary than the rule which had been adopted 
by courts of ecjuity. With tiie view accordingly of obviating 
this inconvenience in the case of sales by auction of land, and 
of assimilating the rules of law and equity, it has been lately 
enacted by o'» *\: 31 Vict. c. -iS, that particulars or conditions 
of sale by auction of laud shall state whether the sale be with 
or without reserve; and that, if the sale is stated to be without 
reserve, the seller may not employ any person for him;^ but 
that, if the sale is stated to be subject to a i;eserved price, the 
seller, or any person named on his l)ehalf, may bid.' The stat- 
ute doG6 not affect any species of property other than land. 

VOLUNTAIIY CONVEYANCES IX FRAUD OF SUHSEQUENT 

pri{( iiAsi;i{s. 
Another class of frauds u[)on third parties is that of volun- 

' Smith V. Clnrko. 12 Yes. 477; * L. U. 1 (^h. .Vi-p. 10. 

WcxKlwunl r Miller, 'i Cull. 27tt; Rob- • 2 Coll. 27'J. 

iimon «•. Willi. 2 ri>. a72; I'liul v. * Sec. ft. 

WooJin, y Uu. C18. * Sec. 0. 



An auctionwr cnnnot make fictitioiw Ii'hI'*. Ycizic r. Willinm><. si How. 

i:;i. 

.\n auctioriccT who sill-t lulow the hiim iix( d l)y ilu' vtinlor. is liablo 
for the dilTcrcnco. Steele p. Ellmakcr, U S. iV U. nil. 



rUALl) I TON TlilUl) I'AUTIKS. '2'2t 

tiu'Y conveyances of real estate in regard to Bul)ficqnent pur- 
chasers. ]3y the 27 VAh. e. 4, made perpetual by 'M Kliz. c. 
18, g 131, all conveyances, tV'c, of any hereditaments fur iImj 
intent and jmrpose to deceive purchasers arc made void as 
airainst theni.^ ("nurts ot' finiitv had jurisdiction in the matter 
lonir before the statute. Tlie act has not defeated the jurisdic- 
tion, but only _i;-ives a more clear and distinct jurisdiction, and 
a more extended remedy.* A voluntary conveyance, is, l)y the 
statute, void as a<i^ainst a subsequent purchaser, although it 
may have been ho/ul Jide and lur <i;()od consideration, and 
although the purchaser may have had full notice of the volun- 
tary conveyance. The statute in every such case infers fraud, 
and Avill not allow the presumption to be rebutted.^* A vol- 
untary conveyance will not be supported against a subsequent 



• Sec Terry nerrick !•, Attwood, 2 D. vertoft v. rulvcrtoft, 18 Yes. 84, 86; 

<t J. 21. IJucklo V. Mitchfll, ih. Ino; Kelson i-. 

^ lb. Kelsiiii, 10 Ha. :W5 : Dakiiii,' v. Whini- 

' Taylor v. Stile, cit. Svur. "V. <t P per, 2i-, Beav. 508 ; Clarke v. Wriglit, G 

•711; Kvelyn »•. Templar. 2 Bro. C. ('. H. »t X. 840. 

148 ; Doe v. Manning, 9 East, 59 ; I'ul- 



* Clanter r. Burgc.«s, 2 Dcv. Eq. i:^; Freeman r. Eatman, 3 Ircd. Eq. 
81 ; Anderson c. Green, 7 J. J. Marsli. 448; Barrineass r. M'.Murray, 3 Bre- 
vard, 204 ; Carter r. Cartleljury, 5 Ala. 377 ; Latter v. ;Morrison, 1 Ircd. 
149; Elliott v. Iloni, 10 Ala. 348; Ricker p. Ilam, 14 Mass. 137; Clapp 
r. Tirrell, 20 Pick. 247; Tate r. Lcggatt, 2 Leigh, 84; Bell r. Blaney, 2 
ilurph. 181. 

The received construction in England of the British statutes at the 
time of our separation from the British empire, may be considered as accom- 
panying the statutes and forming an integral part of them. Subsequent 
decisions are entitled to respect, but are not absolute authority. At tlie 
commencement of the American Revolution the construction of the statute 
of 27th Elizabeth was not settled. The principle adopted in this countrj- 
in continuing the statute, is, that a sulisequent sale without notice by a 
person who ha?* made a settlement not on valuable consideration, is pre- 
sumptive evidence of fraud, and throws on the person claiming under such 
settlement the burden of proving that it was mad3 hon t ji<h\ Cathcart r. 
Robinson, 5 Pet. 2i34 ; Lync r. Bank of Kentucky, 5 J. J. Mai-sh. 545 ; Vcr- 



*2'2S n:.\r!> i ton Tiin:i> r\nTir.f=«. 

puivhasor, evtMi nltlioiiu'li it may have been made by llio direc- 
tion ot'tlie fi.iirt.' A )>urcli:isfr cannt.t, li..\vcvi>r, avail himself 
of the jirovisions of the statute unless he has purehased bond 
p'iie and for a valuable eonsideration. The c.n-lilnation must 

' Martin r. Martin. 2 U. .t M. r.*^", ; Dart, V. .t I". :>70. 



l>lanck r. Stcrry, 12 Johns. 530; B. c. 1 Johns. Ch. 2G0; Bank of Alexan- 
dria r. Fatten, 1 IJob. 490; Lancaster r. Dolan, 1 Hawlo, 231 ; Footman c. 
Fonilcrirrass, 3 Uich. Eq. 33 : Corprcw r. Arlhiir, l."» Ala. 525 ; Mayor & City 
Council of Baltimore r. Williams, (i M«l. 235; Fowler r. Stonoum, 11 Tex. 
478 ; Wells r. Tread well. 2s Mi-s. 717 ; Brown r. Bucks, 22 Geo. 574 ; Gar<l- 
ner r. Booth, 31 Ala. 13G ; Gardner r. Cole, 21 Iowa, 205 ; Jackson r. Town, 
4 Cowon, 003 ; Seward r. Jackson, 8 Cow. 400; Wickesr. Clarke, 8 Paige, 
105; Beal r. Wamn. 2 Gray, 440; Salmon v. Bennett, 1 Ct. 525. 

The act does not ai)i)ly to conveyances made by the State, because it 
operate.^ upon the intent of the person conveyinjr. and the State cannot 
leirally be said to intend to defraud any person. Dodson r. Cooke, 1 Over- 
ton, 314. 

The same circumstances which would render a deed fraudulent if the 
grantor liad owned the legal estate, likewise render it fraudulent considered 
as a mere as-i;.'nment of his equity. The claimant of an equity whose 
claim is based upon a valuable consideration, must prevail over a i)rior 
claim to the same equity based upon a good consideration merely. Lyne 
r. Bank of Kentucky, 5 J. J. ^larsh. 545. 

To make a voluntaiy conveyance void, it must be covinous and fraud- 
ulent, and not voluntary merely, and the evidence of fraud must \je 
pointed. Clayton r. Brown, 17 Geo. 217 ; Cooke r. Kcll, 13 Md. 4G9. 

The iloctrine only applies where both conveyances are made by the 
same person. Russell c. Kearney, 27 Geo. 90 ; Bell r. 3IeCauley, 29 Geo. 
355. 

A voluntary conveyance without actual fraud is valid against a subse- 
quent purchaser for valuable consideration with naticc of the prior con- 
veyances. Bank of Alexandria r. Patton, 1 Kob. 499; Anderson r. Green, 
7 i. J. Marsh. 418; Foster r. Walt(jn, 5 Watts, 378; Iludnal r. Wilder, 4 
3IcCord, 291 ; FoDtman r. Pen<lergass, 3 Uich. Kcj. 33; Frisbic r. McCarty, 
1 Stew, it Port. 08; Mayor & C. C. of Baltimore r. Williams, C. Md. 235; 
Dougherty v. Jack, 5 Watts, 450; Speiso r. McCoy. W. & S 485 ; Moul- 
trie r. Jennings. 2 McMiillan, 508; Howard c. Williams, 1 Bailey, 575; 
Sanger r. Ka-lwood. 19 Wend. 514 ; Shaw r. I^\7, 17 S. & U. 99; Tato r. 
Ligl,'att, 2 Leigh. Hi ; Iliatt r. Watlc. 8 Ired. 310; Brown r. Buck, 22 Geo. 
574; Chaflin r. Kiml«all. 2:i III. 3(J ; Coppagr r. Harnett. 31 Miss. 021; 
Endcri r. Williams, 1 Met. (Ky.> 340; Aiken r. Bruen, 21 Ind. 137. 



niAlI) I TON Tlllill) I'AUTir..'^. 'JL'9 

not ])G so small us to Ijo i)al]>al)ly IVainlulcntJ* In order that 
a subsequent conveyance for value should delcat a j)rior volun- 
tary conveyance, it is also essential that l)oth conveyances 
should be made by the same person. An heir or devisee can- 
not by a conveyance lor value defeat a v(»luntary settlemeni 
made by his ancestor or testator;" nor will e(|uity inteH'ere in 
favor of a subsequent purchaser, where the voluntary grantee 
has conveyed it to a hond fide purchaser for value, or a person 
has inteniiai-rii-d with ihc voluntary grantee, on the faith of the 
voluntary deed, before the hond fide purchaser from the volun- 
tary grantee acquired his title.' f 

A contract to sell the settled estate to a person with full 
notice of the voluntary settlement, will be enforced at the suit 



• Ilnmphreys v. Ponsam, 1 M. AC. • Parker v. Cirtcr, 4 Ila. 400 ; Doe 

nSO; Roberts v. Williams, 4 Ila. loO; v. Kuslmni, 17 Q. B. 723; Lewis v. 

Kelson v. Kelsoo, 10 Ha. aSJ ; Sug. V. llces, 3 K. k J, 1:52. 

&. P. 713. ' Sug. V. <fc P. 720, 721. 



A record of a deed is constructive notice to all su!)sequent purchasers. 
Cooke r. Kell, 13 Md. 4G9 ; Bell v. Blaney, 2 Miirph. 171 ; Cain c Jones, 5 
Terg. B49 ; Bank of Alexandria v. Fatten, 1 Rob. 499 ; Lancaster v. Dolan, 
1 Rawle, 231 ; M'Xeely v. lluckcr, C Blackf. 391 ; contra, Lewis v. Love, 3 
B. M(in. 345 ; Enders v. Williams, 1 Met. (Ky.) 340. 

When a deed is actually fraudulent, the constructive notice arisinij from 
recording will not dolcat the right of a subsequent purchaser, Gardner 
V. Cole, 21 Iowa, 205. 

* Fulleuwider r. Roberts, 4 Dev. & Bat. 278: Tate v. Tate, 1 Dev. & 
Bat. Eq. 22. 

Iso man is a subsequent purchaser except him to whom a conveyance 
has been executed for a valual)le consideration, by which there is conveyed 
to him an estate in the premises either of treehold or for years or some rent 
or profit therein. A covenant to convey is no such sale as constitutes the 
covenantee a subsequent jiurchaser. He must have a legal title such as be 
can enforce at law, and not a mere equity. Hopkins v. Webb, 9 Humph 
519. 

t Anderson v. Green, 7 J. J. ^Marsh. 448; S terry v. Ardcn, 1 Johns. Ch. 
260. 



280 rKAii) rroN riiii;i> rAi:'rii:s. 

of the purcliiisor;* hut tlic seller eannot compel n fipeeifie per- 
fonnaiuv of the contract.' A trust created hy a voluntary 
settlenu'ut will he carried into execution until sale; hut an 
injunction will not he frranted restrainini; the settler from 
defeating; the settlement hy a sale,^ nor will the pendeiuy of a 
suit ]irevent the settler from scllini,' the ])roperty, or the 
l)urchaser from iilini; a hill in (.)rder to enforce his ri;j:hts under 
the contract.* When a voluntary settlement is avoided by a 
subsequent sale, the volunteers have no equity against the 
jnirchase money payable to the settler.' 

As between the parties themselves, and as ac^ainst other 
voluntary irrantces of the same estate, voluntary c<»nvevances 
are binding." * A voluntary settlement will be defeated by a 
conveyance or settlement for value only to the extent neces- 
sary to give effect to the conveyance or settlement for value.'' 
As between two volunteers, the conveyance which is prior in 
date will prevail, if it be Ijond fide? A subsequent volunteer 
cannot, by selling for value, confer any title on a purchaser as 
against a grantee of the same estate who is prior in date.* A 
judgment creditor imt lieiiig a ]iurchascr witliin tlu- meaning 
of the statute, has no title on that ground to set aside a prior 
voluntary settlement.^" f Though a settlement may ajiptar on 

•Buckle V. Mitchell, 18 Vef». 100; •Bill r. Cureton, 2 M. A K. ^03; 

Currif v. Nin.l, 1 M. «V. ('. 17; Willats Doc v. Rtisimin, 17 (i- 13. 1T.\; Lewis v. 

V. Busby, r. Beav. \'j:i; Lister v. Tur- Kees. u K. & J. lli'J. 

ner, 5 Ha. '2'J\ ; Su-.:. V. A ]'. 72n. ' Croker v. Martin, 1 Bligh'a N. S. 

' Smith f. (Muinri.l. *i .Mcr. 123; 673. 

Johnson r. Lc;,'.ir.i, T. ct U. -.IHl. "Doc v. Uushain. 17 Q. B. 728; 

• I'lilvertoft v. rniv<rt<.(t, is Ves. SJ. L<"wis i-. Keca, 3 K. «fc J. 132. 

• Metcair- r. rulvertoft, 1 V. it B. » ///. 

180; Su;,'. V. A- 1'. 721. "• Bcnvan v. Lord Oxford, r, D. M. A. 

• Daking t>. Whiiujicr, 20 Bcav. 608. O. 607. 



♦ TatP r. Tntc, 1 Dcv. A- B.it. Eq. 22; r!ai)p r. TirrcU. 1 Pick. 217. 

+ ThcTo iH no tnatcrial diiriTt-ncc Iwlwci-n a judicial sale ami a private 
Bale. Heynnldrt r. ViluH, b Wia 471 ; Latla r. Jlorrison, 1 Ircd. 110; contra^ 
Kidgway r. Umknvood, 1 Wasli. 129. 



FRAUD TTON TIIIIM) I'A KTIKfl. 2.31 

its faco to l)c V(»lnntary, cviduncu is adiiiissildu to j)rove that 
it was made lor valuable consideration.^ In tlic case of deeds 
allefrcd to lie volunlarv, llic cnurt docs not enter intu the 
quantum' of consideration ; hut oidy iiii|uires wlietlier the 
transaction was one of harijain or one of gift merely.^ In a 
case ■\vhcrc an agreement was entered into between a lady, 
entitled in fee to an estate snhjcct to mortgages, and her 
nephew, that she should come and live with him, and that he 
should remove into a larger house, and he covenanted to 
indemnify her from all liability in respect of the mortgages, 
and fullilled his own part of the agreement, it was held that 
the settlement was not voluntary, the covenant to indemnify, 
and the expenses incurred by the nei)hcw on the faith of the 



'Kelson v. Kelson, 10 Iln. S85 ; ' Townend r. Tokcr, L. R. 1 Cb. App. 

Towueud V. Toker, L. 11. 1 t'li. App. 459. 



A purchaser from an executor is witLin the statute. Clapp r. Leather- 
bee, 18 Pick. 131. 

A mortgagee is a purchaser for a valuable consideration. Lewis v. 
Love, 2 B. Men. 345 ; Lancaster r. Dolan, 1 Rawle, 231 ; Freeman v. Lewis, 
5 Ired. 91; Potts r. r>lackwell, 3 Jones' Ec^. 440; s. c. 4 Jones' Eq. 58; 
Lcdgard v. Butler, 9 Paige, 132. 

A deed made exclusively with the design to defraud creditors can not 
be considered as having been made with the design to defraud purchasers. 
Foster v. Walton, 5 AYatts, 378; Shaw v. Lev}-, 17 S. & R. 99 ; Douglass r. 
Dunlap, 10 Ohio, 1G2; Sanger v. Eastwood, 19 Wend. 514; Teasdale r, 
Atkinson, 2 J3rtvard, 48 ; "Woodman r. Bodtish, 25 Me. 317; Fowler r. 
Stoneura, 11 Tex. 478 ; Jloscley r. Jloseley, 15 N. Y. 334 ; Doolittle r. 
Lyman, 44 N. U. 008; Stevens r. :Morse, 247 N. H. 532. 

K there is any fraud in a voluntary conveyance, or it is merely color- 
able, it can never be set up against a subsequent purchaser for a valual)le 
consideration. Clapp r. Leatherbec, 18 Pick. 131; Kicker r. llani, 14 Mass. 
137 ; Kimball r. Ilutchins, 3 Ct. 4.")0 : Eddins v. Wilson, 1 Ala. 237 ; Carter 
V. Castlebrrry, 5 Ala. 377; Fulknwiiler r. Roberts, 4 Dev. & Bat. 278; 
Walter r. Crallo, 8 B. Mon. 11 ; How r. Waysman. 12 Mo. 1G9. 



'2;VJ rnAin vvos Tim:i) miTiES. 

settlement hvhv^ noininally tsullicicnt to support it as mado for 
value.^ 

Premiptial settlements, and postnuptial settlements in 
pursuance of ])renuptial articles, or on receii)t of an additional 
jiortion, i*cc., Are., are settlements for valuable eonsiileration, 
and are therefore good against subsequent i)ureliaser8 or j)rior 
voluntary grantees, as the case may be.'** So also, in certain 
cases, the concurrence of a stranger may dejjrivc a j)0stnuptial 
settlement of its voluntary character ; ^ but as a general rule a 
postnuptial settlement is voluntary.* The marriage considera- 
tions run through the -whole settlement, as far as it relates to 
the husband, and wife, and issue; but docs nut extend to 
remainders to collateral relations, so as to support them against 
a subsequent sale to a honii Jidc purchaser.' A marriage settle- 
ment so far as it is made in favor of collaterals, is voluntary, 
and therefore fraudulent and void as against subsequent pui"- 
chasers, though made honestly and openly to provide for the 
settler's wife and children,' or his mother and younger 
brothers and sisters,' or for a niece and adopted daughter.' 
Xo moral consideration, however strong, is sutKcient to sup- 
port a settlement against a jiurcliaser;" but if tlie remainders 
are specifically contracted for, and ])rought within the con- 
sideration,'" or if the limitation in the settlement so interfere 
with those which would naturally be made in favor of the 
husband, wife, and issue, that it must be presumed to have 
been agreed upon by all jiarties as part of the marriage con- 



'Towncnd v. Tokcr, L. R. 1 Cli. App. • Clinpmnn t'. Emory, Cowp. 278,280. 

45!t. ' l)i)c I'. Maiiniii^, 1' Knst, Ml. 

» Su£r.V. «t r. 718 ; Dnrfs V. it P. 670. * Stiiilli .•. ('iKTrill. L. U. •« Kq. 390. 

» l)iirrH V. A I*. TiTrt. :i77. • Itut k.o Cliirki- v. Wriijlit, U. A 

♦ Su(,'. V. A 1'. 7I.'>. N. S7-J,/«T C'oikliurn. (.'. J. 

' J()lin»<.n V. I.<>:;nr(l, M. 4 8. CO; •• bug. V. «k 1'. 710. 
T. «t 11.281; 8u^^ V. A 1'. 71fi. 



* Vcrplanck r. Stern, 12 Jnluis. 5:30; 8. c. 1 Johnn. Cli. 2'10, 



FRAUD UrON Til IK I) I'AUTIHS. 2'.V.] 

tract, it in not vdlmitary, and will Ik; Mi|i|i<)rtc<l a;,'ain.-.t a hub- 
se(|m'nt piirclia.sur.^ 

Tho Bfatute 27 Kliz. c. 4, furtlier inakcs void as against 
Bubsefiucnt purchasers ior inuiiey or other good (•(jiisideratioii 
all eonveyanccs made with any clause, provision, article, or 
condition of revocation, determination or alteration at the 
grantor's will or ])leasure, whether sucli clause, ikc, ttc, ex- 
tend to the wliole interest actually conveyed or only partially 
affect it.2 

The statute 27 Eliz. c. 4, does not apply to personal chat- 
tels." * 

A purchaser for value of real estate cannot come into the 
Court of Chancery to have a ])rior voluntary deed void under 
27 Eliz. c. 5, delivered up to be cancelled. The court, in such 
a case, leaves both parties to their legal rights and remedies.* 

NOTICE. 

Another class of frauds upon third parties consists of cases 
where a man takes or purchases property with notice of the 

• Clarke ;■. Wrii^ht, fi II. & N. 869, on this subject Sug. V. «tP. 721 ; Dart's 
ner Blackburn and Willes, JJ.; Dart's V. tt P. 584. 

V. «fe 1'. 578-581; but see II. it N. 'Jones v. Crouclicr, 1 Sim. <fe St. 

869, per Williams, J. 315; Bill v. Cureton, 2 M. ifc K 503; 

^ Burt Ileal Prop. 5. 224. See further Barton v. Vanhcythuys n, 11 Ila. 12G. 

* De Ilo^iiton v. Money, 3.> Beav. 98. 



♦ Davis V. Bigler, 63 Penn. 342 ; Tcasdale r. Atkinson, 3 Brevard, 48; 
Scwall V. Gliddon, 1 Ala. 53; Bolm v. llcadloy, 7 II. 6c J. 2J7 ; Garri.<on 
f. Rives, 3 Jones, 85 ; Jones v. Hall, 5 Jones' Eq. 30. 

Although the terms of the act apply only to land, yet, being declaratorj- 
of the common law, they must be interpreted as defining the nature and 
effect of fraudulent conveyances, generally, in its letter, as enacting tlic 
common l;uv as to fraud relating to land, but in its spirit sanctioning and 
sustaining the coudemnation i)assed by the common law upon all frauds. 
Gibson r. Love, 4 Fla. 317 ; Footman v. Pcndergrass, 3 Rich. Eq. 33. 

If the vendee allows personal property to remain in the possession of 
Iti 



'J:U rUAl 1) I I'CtN TIIIIM) I'AKTll'S. 

legal or ciiuitaide title of other persons to the suine property, 
and seeks to defeat their just, riijhts hy a[)j)n>priating the 
property to his own use. In equity uotiee aU'ectH the con- 
scienec. A man who takes or jmrchases property cannot 
protcet himself a*]^ainst claims, of which he has notice, to the 
simio property. If a man a{'<|uirin<; property ha.s at the time 
of the acipiisitioii notice of an equity bindini; the ])erson from 
whom he takes, in respect of the projicrty, he is bound to the 
sjimc extent and in the same manner by the same equity.^ * In 
accordance witli this j)rinciplc the ]»urchaser of property from 
a trustee, witli notice <tf the trust, is himself a trustee for the 
same proi)erty ; - the purchaser of property whieii the vendor 
has contracted to sell, is, if he has uotiee of the contract, 
bound by the same equity by which the vendor whom he 
represents was bound ; ^ the purchaser of property with notice 
of an equitable lien for unpaid purchase-money,* or of an 
Cfjuitable nn»rtixage by deposit of deeds,' is bound by the 
e(|uity to which his vendor was liable; and the purchaser ot 

' Tavlor v. Stibbert, 2 Vcs. Jr. 437; Bolnn.l, 1 Dr. <k Will. 37. See Dowcll 

Dunbar v. Tredi-unkk. 2 B;i. A. lie. 310. r. Diw, 1 Y. <k C. C. C. 345. 

' SuundiTs I'. Delicw, 2 Vern. 271; * Macntli v. Symoiis, 16 Vcs. 850; 

Allen V. Kni-iit, 5 Hi. 272; 11 Jur. liieo c. Rice. 2 Drew. 73. 

r.27; Carter v. CorU'r. 3 K. ik J. C17; ' I'lunib v. Fiuitt. 2 Anst. 432; Ilicrn 

Corv I'. Evre, 1 D. J. <k S. 149. v. Mill, 13 Yes. 114; DrviUii v. Frost, 

• Taylor t-. Stibbert. 2 Yes. Jur. 438; 3 M. & C. C70 ; Leigh r.'Lloyd, 2 D. J. 

Scott V. Dunbar, 1 Moll. 442; Field v. «t S. 330. 



the vendor, ami the vendor sells it again to a l>on l fide purchnser without 
notice, he nin not recover it. Shaw r. Levy, 17 8. & K. D'J ; Davis r. 
]Jif,'hT, 02 Penn. 212 ; Fleming v. Towuscnd, Geo. 103 ; lludnal r. 
Wilder, 4 McCord, 2U5 ; Harper r. Scott, 12 Geo. 125. 

To Hiistain a voluntary conveyance of personal property against a sub- 
Hequent purcha-er for value, the notice must he actual, and not liy record. 
Flnnini; r. Townsen<l, fl (Jco. 103; Fowhr r. ^Yal.ilip. 10 (ico. :(r>0 ; Ilur- 
1K.T r. 8<olt, 12 Geo. 125. 

♦Caldwell r. Carrlng'on, 9 Pet. 80; Ma-siy r. Mcllvain, 2 IlilPrt Ch. 
421; Allen r. Sanders, 2 IJild), Ji4 ; Voder r. Swope, W Bibh, 201; Lang- 
don r. Woodfleld, 2 H, Mon. 105; Edwards r. Morris, 2 A. K. Marsh. Co; 
Mordand r. Lc.Muatcr, 4 Blackf. :JM3. 



FRAUD Ll'ON TIIIUI) i'AHTlES. 2.';r> 

land wliic'li t!ic vendor lias covenanted to use in a specified 
manner is, if he has notice- of the covenant, bound by its 
terms.' 

It iiiust, however, be observed tliat tlie notice required by 
the doctrine is notice of an equity, whicli, if clotlied with legal 
comj)leteness, would be indefeasible, and not merely notice of 
a defeasible k\:;al interest, or of an interest which, if legal, 
woidil be defeasible. The principle is, that an interest which, 
if legal, would be indefeasible shall not be defeated by reason 
of its equitable character by a party who has notice of it ; if, 
being legal, it may be defeated at law, there is no equity to 
support it.'-^ A voluntary conveyance, for instance, has no 
equity to support it against a subsequent alienation for value, 
even tliougli with notice, fur tlie right of the volunteer is 
defeasible by statute.' A feme covert or an infant is just as 
much bound by notice as an adult.* 

Xotice is either actual or constructive ; but there is n(» 
difference between them in its consequences.' Actual notice 
consists in express information of a fact, and brings home 
knowledge directly to a party. Actual notice must, in order 
to be binding, at least when it depends on oral communication 
only, proceed from some one interested in the property," and 
should be in the same transaction. Mere vague rumors, or 
the assertions of strangers, will not fix a party with actual 
notice.' Actual notice embraces all degrees and grades of 



■ Tulk V. Mnxlmv, 2 Ph. 774 ; Coles v. * Sheldon v. Cox, 2 Eden, 221 ; Pros- 
Sims, 5 D. M. «L-'G. 1; De Mattos v. ser v. Kicc, 28 Beav. 68; Wormald v 
Gibson, 4 I), (k J. 282. Mnitlaiid, o") L. J. Ch. O'J. 

"Adams' Doct. Kquitv, 152. » Baruiiardt v. Greenshields, 9 Moo. 

* Pulvertoft J). Pulvertoft, 18 Ves. 92; P. C. C. 18. See Greenslade v. Dare, 
Buckle V. MitclicU, <7». 100. 2n Beav. 284; Jay v. Richardson, 3>i 

* Jones V. Kearney, 1 Dr. <fc War. Beav. 5ti;^. 

I(j6. ' " Sug. V. <k P. 755. See Greenslade 



*Flafrjr r. Mann. 2 Sumner. 484; Eply r. Witberow. 7 Watts, 163; 
James r. Drake, 3 Snecil. 340 ; Bla.k v. Tiiorntou, 31 Geo. (311. 



23ri 



nJAIl* ri'(»N TIIIKH PARTIES. 



ovidrnco, iVom ihc im^t ilirirt ami )«»sitivi* jipMif to the 
slightest evidoiice tVniu whirli a jiirv woiiM !);> warraiitfd in 
iut'iTrini; notice. It is a mere question (»t' tact, and is (»|»en to 
every ^^»e^■ies of leiritiniate evidenec which may tend to 
Btrenirthen or i!ni)air the conchision.' * 

Whatever is notice enoni,di to cxcito tlic attention of a 
man of unlinary pnidinci- and call for fiirtla-r intjniry is, in 
0([uity, notice otall facts to the knowled;^e of which an in^iuiry 
8u:ri,'ested hy such notice, and prosecuted witli duo and reasun- 
ahle dili^'ence, wouhl liave led.^f Notice of this sort is called 
constructive notice. Constructive notice, as distinguished 
from actual notice, iu a h-irai inference from established facts, 
ami, like other leiral ])resumj)tion.s, does not admit of dispute.^ 
If a man has actual notice of circumstances sutlicient to put a 
man of ordinary }>rudence on incpiiry as to a jiarticular point, 
the knowledge which he mii^ht, by the exercise of reasonable 
dilii,'cnce, have obtained will be imj)Uted to him by a court of 



r. Dare, 20 Beav. lis I ; ( Vntnil Uailway 
Co. of Venezuela v. Kiscli. 1 L. K. A[>\>. 
Ca. 112; llauiiltou v. Uovse, 2 iidi. it 
Lef. 315. 

' Williamson i'. IJrown, 1 Sinilli 
Amer.), :{.1'.i, j-rr Seltlen, .1. See Bour- 
Bot r. Savai^e, L. K. 2 Kci. 1:51. 

• Maitlaiid t: Duckliou=e, 17 L. J. Ch. 
121 ; Ksi-e}- v. Lake, lu lla. 2t;o; 
>laijj,'l«s If. Dixon, a II. L. 7U2 ; Uwen 



I'. Iloiuau, 1 II. L. ?'.'7; Dawson r. 
I'rince. 2 1>. it J. 41 ; I'erry v. lloll, 2 
1). F. »fe J. ;t8 ; Broailbent i-. Harlow, 3 
1). F. & J. 57'" ; Dettinar r. Metropoli- 
tun and I'roviucial Bunk, 1 11. ct M. 

on. 

' WiUiain.son v. Brown, 1 Smith 
(.\mer.) a.'j'J. /xr SuMen, .1.; Birdsiull r. 
Kussell, 2 Tiff. (Aincr.) 21'J. 



There is no rule (tf law which makes u stiituinent of ii fact in a news- 
paper either uetuiil or constructive notice. It is not sutlicient to sbo\r 
that a person wa.-< in the hahit of readinj; the paper. It nmst be proved 
that he read it. Lincoln r. Wri;,'ht, 23 Penn. 70. 

* Williamson i. Brown, L", ,\. Y. 3.'34. 

t Galatian r. Erwin. I llr)pk.48; Hobert!* r. Anderson, :! .lohns. Ch. 
87!; Pitney t. I.conanl. 1 I'ai^'e, 401; Blaisdell r. Stevens, 10 Vt. 173 ; 
HtatT.-nl r. Ballou, 17 Vt.:t2»; Peters r. (Joodrich, 3 Ct. 110; Booth ». 
Barnum, Ct. 2K0 ; Binganiun r. Hyatt, 1 Smed. i^ Mar. Ch. 137. 



rilALl) I TON TIIJKI) 1'A1:T1E8. 2S7 

cijiiltv. The presumption of the existence of knowled'^'e is bo 
sfroii^' tliiit it raiiiiot l»c allowed to be rebutted.^* 

Tlurt' is, however, no (•on>triictivc not ice unless it cleai-ly 
ajipear that tlie iiii|iiiiT sug<^ested b}' the facts known or dis- 
covered would, if fairly i)ursued, result in tlie discovery. 
There must ap])ear to be in the nature of the case such a con- 
nection between the fact discovered and the further facts to be 
discovered that the former may be saiil to furnish a clue— a 
reasonable and natural clue — to the latter.^ 

The doctrine of constructive notice applies with peculiar 
force where the court is satisfied that a man has desi<;nedly al>- 
stained from inquiry for the very purpose of avoiding knowl- 
edge. AVilful ignorance is not to be distinguished, in its 
equitable consequences, from actual kuijwledge.^ If, liowever, 

• riumb r. Flintt, 2 Anst. 438, per C. * Birdsall v. Russell, 2 Tiff. (AmtT.) 

B. Eyre ; llowilt r. Looscmore, '.» lla. 250. 

4.'i5,)<fr Turner, L. J. ; Kspin c. Tcm- 'Jones v. Sniitli, 1 Ila. TiS, 1 Ph. 

berton, 3 D. (t J. ri51,;/or Lord Chelms- 244; Owen v. Iloinan, 4 II. L. l''J7, 

ford. 1U35. 



* Davis r. Bi^lcr, 02 Pcnn. 243 ; Harris r. Carter, 3 Stew. 233 ; ninds 
c. Vattier, 1 McLean, 110; Pearson v. Daniel, 2 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 3(30; 
Lasselle v. Burnett, 1 Bluckf. loO; Cotton v. Hart, 1 A. K. Marsh. 50. 

The principle of the doctrine of constractive notice is, that where a 
person is al)OUt to perform an act by which he has reason to believe that 
the rights of a third party may be affected, an inquiry into the fact is u 
moral duty and diligence an act of justice. Hence he proceeds at hia 
peril when he omits to inquire, and is then chargealde with a knowledge 
of all the facts which, by inquiry, he might have ascertained. This 
neo-lcct is followed by all the consequences of bad faith, and he loses tLe 
protection to which his ignorance, had it not proceeded from neglect, 
woulil have entitled him. Tiic rule is the same in courts of law or ojuity, 
and in botli tlie term notice must receive the same interpretation. It must 
either l>e limited to strict knowledge which is derived from positive infor- 
mation, or must be extended to that which the law imputes to him who, 
having reason to believe or suspect, neglects to inquire. Pringle r. Philips, 
5 Sandf. 157. 

The pre.'iuniption of notice which arises from proof of that degree of 
knowledge which will put a party upon inquiry, is not a presumption of 



•j:{S 



riiAi i» I ION iiiinn i'ai;tii:s. 



a nmn abstain from iin|iiiry wlicro iiitiuirv oiiu^Iit to liavc ln-t-n 
Made, it is iimiiatorial that tlio lu-i^loct to make iii<iuirv may 
not liavo j>rocrc'<k'tl iVom any wish to aviiiil knowledge. It 
may lie that incjniry miglit not have hroiight out tlie truth ; 
hut a man wlio abstains iVoni inquiry where ini|uirv ought to 
have been made, cannot he heard to say so and to rely on his 
ignorance.* * In the absence of intjuiry, where in(|uiry ouglit 
to have been made, the court is bound to assume that the per- 
son from whom incpiiry shouhl have been made would liavo 
done what it was liis duty to do.^ A man cannot escape being 
tixcd witii constructive notice by not using tlie ordinary cau- 
tion of employing a solicitor to protect liis interest. It" a man 
emjdoys no sobeitor he will be held to have exactly the same 
kn<»wledgc, and will be liable to the san^e extent as if he had 
em}>loyed a solicitor.^ 

If mere want of caution as distinguished from gross and 
culpable negligence is all that can lie im]»uted to a man, the 
doctrine of constructive notice will not ai)ply.* The doctrine 
does not go to the extent of fixing a man with such knowledge 
as he might by the exercise of extreme and extraordinary cau- 
tion have obtained. A man is in ikj case bound to use every 
exertion to obtain information. The want, indeed, of that 

' .Tones r. Smitli, 1 Ila. 4:: ; West t>, * Kennedy r. nrcen. 3 M. .t K. f<99; 

Ueid, 2 Iln. 24 n ; Maitland c. IJnck- Ilnrrison r."Gm'.st, (i D. M. it (J. 428, 8 

house. 17 L. J. <'1l 121 ; Jc.nws v. Wii- 11. L. 4H1. 

li am It, 24 U'miv. 47; Mayor c»f IWrwic k ' .lom-s i: Smitli, 1 Hh. .'•.'»; West v. 

r. Murrnv. 7 D. M. A- U. 4'.»7 ; (Jen. nil Hi id, 2 llu. 2r.i, 2.'.'.»; Wure i: Kjrniont. 

Mc«m .NuviuMton Co. r. Unit, C. C. H. 4 D. .M. tV (I. 4<lo ; WiNt.n r. Hart, 2 

N. S. .'i.Vi. S.-.- Farrunl v. blaiicliford, 11. <k M. 551. Sec Doddu v. llilLs, ib. 

I I». .1. d- S. Iii7. 420. 

' Knight V. Uoytr, 2 I), .t J. 4. Ml. 



l.iw but of fact, and intiy U- rclmttcd by proof of (rili;:int iiujuiry. Wil- 
liiiiii.xon r. IJrown. \'> N. Y. ;i.')l; .Mussic r. Ciriciiliow, 2 I'at. A: Ilcatli, 
2.'«5; Hoyt r. Sluddon. :t Hosw. 2<i7. 

♦ Olivtr r. riatt, :\ How. :j:!;S ; .IcnkiiM r. Kl.lri.lgc, 3 Slury, lai; Pit- 
noy r. Lcor.nrd, IBl. 



ruAii) ri'oN TiiiKi) i'.\i:rn:s. 239 

caution wliicli a warv and pnidciif man nii;^'l»t, and proLaLly 
^s■^^u]^\ liuvc adopted, is not bucIi nt'<^li^a'nce as will allix a party 
with notice of what lio might havt; ascertainc<l.' 'J'he mcaiirt 
of knowledi^o by whirh a man will he aifcctcd with notice 
must he means of knowled<^^e which afe jtractically within 
reach, and ('f which, a reasonable man or a man of ordinary 
prudence mii;ht have been expected to avail himself.^ Mere 
suspicion or vague and indeterminate rumor is not sufficient to 
put a man upon inquiry.^* There must be a reasonable cer- 
tainty as to time, place, circumstances, or persons/ The ques- 
tion is not whether a man had the means of obtaining, and 
might by prudent caution have obtained, the knowledge in 
question, but whether the not obtaining it was an act of gross 
and culpable negligence.'' t Kegligence supposes a disregard 

« Hill V. Simpson, 1 Vis. 109 ; Whit- Ilino v. Dodd, 2 Atk. 2T5. See Central 

brcml r. Jordan, 1 Y. «t C. 317; Jones Kailway Co. of Venezuela v. Kisch, 2 

r. Smith, 1 I'h. 257; West v. Reid, 2 L. R. App. Ca. 112. 

Ha. 250 ; Ware i-. Ei^mont, 4 D. M. & * Story's Eq. Jur. 400; General Steam 

C. 400; Steplienson v. Roysc, 5 Ir. Ch. Navigation Co. v. Rolt, C. B. N. S. 

401 ; Ro National Life Assurance and 05O. See P.lacklow ;•. Laws, 2 Ila. 48. 

Investment Association. 31 L. J. Ch. » Ware ;•. E;:;nu.nt, 4 1). M. it (i. 400; 

828. See Dawson r. rrinco, 2 D. & J. Monteliore v. Browne, 711. L. 241. See 

41; Grcensladc v Dare, 20 Beav. 284; Borell r. Dann, 2 lla. 440; Greenslado 

Dudds V. Hills, 2 H. <k M. 424. v. Dare, 20 Beav. 284 ; Tildesl.-y v. 

' Jackson v. Rowe, 2 Sim. <k St 472 ; Lodge, 3 Sm. i G. 543 ; Re National 

Broadbent v. Barlow, 3 D. F. «fc J. 570. Life Assurance and InvestuicDt As;0- 

» Whitfield V. Fausset, 1 Ves. 392; ciation, 31 L. J. Ch. 828. 



♦ Wilson r. McCuUouirh, 23 Pcnn. 440 ; Lamont r. Stimson, 5 Wis. 443 ; 
Colquitt r. Thomas, 8 Geo. 258. 

Circumstances, sufiicicnt to raise suspicion, are constructive notice. 
Bunting r. Ricks, 2 Dev. «fc Bat. Eq. 130. 

A rumor is notice if it turns out to be correct, for it is sufficient to put 
tlie party upon incjuiry. Benzoin v. Lenoir, 1 Dev. Eq. 225. 

Althoui,'h the party whose interest would prompt him to misrepre- 
sent, asserts that an incumbrance has been paid olT or discharireJ. without 
fiirnishinc any proof whatever, or referring to any oircumstancta in sup- 
port of his assertion, the purchaser wlio fails to make further inquiry will 
nevertheless be guilty of such a degree of negligence that he will be con- 
bidered as having notice. Rice r. McDonald, C Md. 403. 

+ Wison r. Wall, G Wall. 83; Woodworth v. Paige, 5 Ohio St. R. 70 ; 
Briggs c. Taylor, 28 Vt 180. 



•210 



FHAin ri'ON riiii:i) r\i:Tirs. 



of sonic fart kiu'Wii to a iiiaii wliicli at Ua.-t indicates tlie 
oxistoncr t'f that fact, notice of wliicli the c.iiirt imputes 
to him.* Tliere is often mncli dilliculty in dniwini; the lino 
between the (U\i;ree of ne<;h"i;ence, which shall he j^ros.s ne^li- 
irenee. an<l that mere want of caution which, in the ahscnee of 
iVaml. (hn'S n(»t amount to negliijence in the lepil sense of the 
term. No general rule can be lai<l down which shall i^overn 
all cases. Each case must (lei)end on its own circumstances.'* 

It a man has actual notice that the jtroperty in (juesfion is 
in fact charf^^cd, encumhcred, or in some way aifecte<l, or has 
actual notice of facts raisini; a ]>resum|»tion that it is so, he is 
bound in etjuity with constructive notice of all facts and instru- 
ments, t(» a knowledi^e of which he would have been led by an 
inquiry after the charge, incumbrance, or other circumstance 
aftcctinir the property of wliidi hi' had actual notice.^ f 

AVhere, acconliniily, a man has notice, whet her by recital, 
description of parties, or otherwise, of an instrument, which 
from its nature must form, directly or presumptively, a link in 
the title, or is told at the time that it does so, he will be pre- 
sumed to have exaiuiued it, and therefore to have notice of all 



» WpBt V. ReiJ. 2 Iln. 210, 259. See 
Grcentiladc v. Dnn-, 20 lU-iiv. 'IHi. 

' JoiK's ('. Sinitli. 1 llii. 55; WcBt ti. 
Ilcitt, 2 lift. 21'.'; Waro i: K;^iont, 1 1). 
.M. d: (1. li.O; C'olvcr v. Fincli, 5 II. L. 
905; I'erry-llcrrick »•. AttwootI, 2 I), tt 
J. 21. Sc'c aa U) lu'^^lij^i-iici', sujint, pp. 

i4t». in. 

» 1 Ho. ri5. prr Wi^jnim, V.-C. ; 7 H. 
L. 2'i2, ftr honl ('lii'lin''foril. Seo 
Duwuea r. rower, 2 iJa. tk Dc. 493; 



Grant v. Canipbtll, 6 Pow. 2.10; Nce- 
Bom f. C'lJll•k^^Jll. 2 Iln. lt'>;{; Wi-.st. i-. 
Ki'ul, ;//. 2J'.t; Att.-(;fn. r. Flint. 4 Ha. 
147; Frail c. Klli.f, liV lU-av. 35(»; Jit 
IJrif^ht'H Trusts, 21 IJoav. 4:{t»; C'ldcs v. 
Sims, 5 1). .M. it <;. 1 ; Wdchmnn v. 
Coventry I'nion Uank. S W. K. 720; 
Jay >■. Kitliartl>«>n, ;{<i Doav. 5<\:{ ; C«'X 
I'. Covcuton. ;U Itcav. USS ; Locke ». 
J'nsi-..tt,;{2 Hoiiv. 261 ; Lcif^li r. Lloyd, 
2 D, J. «t S. 330. 



♦ Lowrj- r. Brown, 1 C"ol<L -ITjO; Doyle r. Tciir, 4 Brnni. 203. 

t Skccl r. Hprakir, H Vu'im; 1K2; Hoherttt r. Ht.inton, 2 Miinf. 129; 
IV)wnn c. AdninB, 1 Smnl. A: Miir. Ch. 45; I'oulot r. Johncon, SS Geo. 403; 
Mav(iel<l r. Avrritt, 11 Tix. MO; Ciirrcns r. Ilarl, Ilnnlin, 37. 

A dfffc-tivc «lrr«I Ih notice of all fraud countrlcd with its cxccutioa 
Hmith r. Hhanc, 1 McLean, 22. 



FRAUD ri'ON TlllKI) rAKTlKH. 



L'll 



instruments or facts to wlilcli an cxaiiiiiiatioii wcjiild Iia\c lol 
liiiii.^ 

A pnrcliascr, nccordiiiu'-ly, -who lias actual notice of a <lcci|, 
is Itound l»_v all its contents,^ ''•' and lias notice of all (Mjuitics 
sjtrini,dni,' out of the defd,"f and of mII instruments to which 
an e.xannnation ot the deed would have led liini;*;}: even 
altliouf^h such instruments arc not actually recited, hut there 
is only a recital that the property is subject to limitations 
which, in fact,coi-res])ond with tlu- limitations thereby created.' 
If the deed under which he takes title be a settlement, ho 
takes with notice of all equities springing out of the settle- 



* Snrman v. Barlow, 2 Eden, Iftl ; 
Shcliliiii V. Cox, if). 221; llamilt'in w. 
Royse, 2 Sch. A Lcf. 32(5; Taylor v. 
Baker, 5 Pri. 3ut) ; Jones »>. Smitli, 1 
I'll. 253 ; West v. Ueid, 2 Ila. 241). See 
Moor V. Bennett, 2 Cli. Ca. 240; Bath 
and Monta;;iie's Case, 3 ( li. Ca. 110; 
Mcrtins r. JoHilVe, Ainh. 311; IMunib 
r. Flintt, 2 Anst 432; Taliner v. 
Wlie.lcr, 2 Ba. ife I'o. 31 ; Kyre !-. 
DiJpliin, ib. 2'.tn; Jlalpiis v. Ack"land,3 
Russ. 273; Davi;? v. Thomas, 2 Y. <t C 
234; Roddy v. Williams, 3 J. ifc L. 1 ; 
Steadman r. I'oole, 16 L.J. Ch. 349; 
Hope V. Liddell, 21 Beav. 183; Cox v. 



Coventon, 81 Beav. 378 ; Clements v. 
W'elles, L. R. 1 Eq. 200. 

" Tanner v. Florence, 1 Ch. Ca. 2')0 ; 
Taj'lor V. Stibbert, 2 Ves. Jr. 437 ; Nee- 
som I'. Clarkson, 2 Ila. 173. 

' Hamilton v. Royse, 2 Sch. & Lef. 
326 ; Ipiit see LI. <k 6. 264, per Lord St. 
Leonards, Sug. V. & V. I'l. 

* Coppin V. Ferny hough, 2 Bro. C. C. 
201 ; Bisco v. Earl of Banbury, 1 Ch. 
Ca. 287, 2'.tl; Tanner i'. Florence, ib. 
250, 260 ; Daviea if. Thomas, 2 Y. &. C, 
234. 

' Necsom i'. Clarkson, 2 Ila. 163. 



* Wormlcy r. TVomiley. 8 Wheat. 421 ; Johnston r. Gwathmcy, 4 Litt 
317; Cbcv v. Calvert, Walker, 54; Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333; Ncale c. 
Haythrop, 3 Bland, o51 ; Christmas r. Mitchell, 3 Ired. Eq. 53o; Mason r. 
Paine, Walker's Ch. 453. 

t Hackwith x. Dawson, I Minn. 235 ; Rutter c. Barr, 4 Ohio, 446 ; Van 
Dom r. Kobinson, 1 Green, 256; Gordon r. Sizcr, 39 Mi^^s. 805; Griffith r. 
Griffith, 1 Iloff. Ch. 153 ; Ropers v. Jones, 8 K H. 2G4. 

X Chew r. Caloitt, 1 Walk. 54; Ncale r. Haythrop, 3 Bland, 551 ; Kerr 
c. Kitehen, 17 Penn. 433; Johnson r. Thweatt, 18 Ala. 741; Waiks v. 
Cooper, 24 Miss. 208; ]SIeRimmer8 r. ilartin, 14 Tex. 318. 

A purchaser is bound to take notice of qualifications in the power of 
attorney of an agent from whom he purchases. Morris r. Terrell, 2 Rand. 
6 ; Graves v. Graves, 1 A. K. Marsh. 165. 

The doctrine of constructive notice has no reference to controversies 
between vendor and vendee in relation to their own rights. Champlin r. 
Laytin, 6 Paige, 189. 



242 rUAii) I rt)N iiiikii i'ai:tii:s. 

iiu'nt.* Xotico of a ]>(>stmipti;il, ;m<l ;ij»]>;irriifly voliiiitarv, 
setlK'Uioiit a;;ri'(.'iiu'nf. is not ire <>1' the aiitcnui>tial si'ttleniont 
oil wliicli it is rouiultMl.' S(» alxi iintici' nf an ciiuitaMe claim, 
as aUVctiiii; an unspt'cifuMl jxtrtioii of the j»rt>i>('rty, is notice of 
the claim as in fact atlcctin^ the entirety.' If tlic deed nnder 
whidi lie takes title shows that there are incumhrances affect- 
ing the property to which tlio deed relates, ho takes with 
notice of all such incumhrances.* In Peto r. 1 1:niiiiu»nd,' the 
]»urchaser of land from the allottees of a l>uildini^' society, who 
had not inipiired for the conveyance of the land to the trustees 
of the society, was held bound not only l>y the notice of the 
deed, but also by what would have certainly been told him, if 
he had in<|nired fur the deed, namely, that the deed had been 
retained by the ]>arty who had sold the land to the trustees, as 
au equitable mortgage, with a covenant from the trustees to 
convey the legal estate to him, if required. So also if a man 
l)urcliases from a seller whose conveyance was "subject to all 
the mortgages and charges aft'ecting the same," he will be 
bound by a ])rior dcj)osit of the deeds relating to a jxtrtion of 
the estate of which he had not notice, although there were 
other charges of which he was informed, which satislied the 
words, " mortgages and charges.'' ® A prospectus, however, 
of a company, mentioning an act of I'arliament, in which act 
a deed of settlement is recited, is not of itself sullicient to lix 
any person reading the i)ros])ectus with constructive notice of 
the contents of the dee<l. To hold that he mms would be 
carrying the doctrine of constructive notice too lar.' 

JSo also notice of a lease is notice of all its cttntents." If a 
]iurchascr luus notice that property is held un<ler a lease, ho 

» ITamilton ». RoyBo, 2 8cli. «t Lcf, • 30 Honv, 10.%. 

S2r.. • JoncM ii. WiHinm«, 2 J Hcnv. 47. 

• FiTHirn I'. Hi'Trv, 2 Vi'rn. Its J. ' AV .Niitionnl Ansurnnco Aasociation, 

• AU..';.n. «•. Kliiit, -I Mn. 117. !•» W. K. ft IN. 

• MonU-lK.re v. Hrowiii'. 7 IL L. IJI 1 ; " Hall v. Srnilli. I i Vi"«. 42rt ; Walter 
but set- Siig. V. «k r. 777. f. .Muiuido, 1 J. d: \V. Idl ; .Smith v. 



ri:Aii» ri'oN tiiiim) i'.\Krii:s. 21.'* 

cannot ohjcct that liu liad no iiuticu of any jmrticnlar covenant 
tluTcin cont.iiniMl.* The oiiil>-<ion on tlie juirt of" the vc'n(h»r 
to btatu unusual covenants in the i)articuhirs of sale, does not 
affect tlie title;'* nor is it a misrepresentation, although the 
value of the premises may he lessened l>y such covenants." In 
a case where tlie conditions of sale were silent as to the nature 
of the covenants, and required that the purchaser should 
covenant Mith the ven<h)r for the performance of the covenants 
and conditions in the lease, a covenant in the lease against 
carrying on certain specified trades, " or any other noisome or 
otiensive trade," was held to be no oLjectiou to the title.* So 
also a clause against alienation without the lessor's consent 
was held to he no objection in the lease of a house, at least in 
or near London.^ 

A man who wishes to protect himself against unusual or 
particular covenants, should, before purchasing, inquire into 
the covenants aiul stipulations of the original lease, so as to 
know precisely the terms on which the pro])erty is held.' If 
there be net misrepresentation by the vendor, the ]»nrclia.-cr is 
bound by the contents of the lease;' but if there be mis- 
representation, so that the acutcness and industry of the pur- 
chaser is set to slec]), and he is induced to believe the contrary 
of what is the real state of the case, the vendor is in such case 
bound by the misrepresentation.^ If, for instance, the terms 
of a particular covenant turn out to be of a much more 
stringent description than they were represented to be, there 
is fraud.^ 

Cnpron, 7 ITa. 191 ; Dawes v. Betta, 12 * Grosvcnor t». Green, 28 L. J. Cb. 

Jur. 70Vt; Lewis v. Rond, IS Ueav. 85; 173. 

Parker i-. Wlivte, 1 II. it M. lt)7 ; I'lem- * Stran^rwaTS v. Bishop. 20 L T. 120. 

eiits I'. Wulk-'si, L. R. 1 Eq. 200; but see ' Tope c (iarlaml. 4 Y. A: C. ;^94 ; 

Martin i'. Cotter, 3 J. *$: L. 5U6, /»<•>• Lord Martin v. Cotter, 3 J. tk L. 5titj ; CuUea 

St. Leonards. v. O'.Meara, L. II. Ir. 2 C. L. 603. 

' Jf>. ' pope V. Garland, 4 Y. A- C. 394 ; 

" Pope V. Garland. 4 Y. <.tC. 394. Spunner v. W.-dsh, lo Jr. Kq. 4<X). 

' Spunner n. Walsh, 10 Ir. Eq. 3S6, ' Pope v Garland. 4 V. «fc C. 394. 

11 Ir. Eq. r.9!:!. » Fiiijlit i-. Dooth, 1 Bing. N.C. 377; 



244 rPvAin ivi-^y: nniM) r\in'n:s. 

The riili' that iiotici' t>\' a Kmsu is m it ice i>i' its contouta 
applies to tin" case of sales uinKr a tKcivi', as wi-li as to tho 
ca5e of sales out of court.' 

nioiii;h notice of a lease is notice of its contents, the court 
may, on the aj»)»lication for specilic ])erfonnanc •, decline to 
«;rant sjH'cilic |ierl"(innaiice of a lease containing covenants of 
an unusual natiiri', if the ]»ers(»n ufjainst mIioui the relief is 
P(»u<rht hail no reasonahle means of ins[>ectin_i; the original 
lease, or knowiui^ its contents.'^ If, however, he has had 
reasonable means of inspcctinrif the lease, specific performance 
will be decreed,' althou:,di he may have intended to api>ly the 
property to a }>urpose whicli, as it turnctl out, was prohibited.* 
It is immaterial, in such case, whctlicr or nut the vendor knew 
the purcha-ser's intention.' 

So, also, and upon the same ]trincii»le, where a man is of 
right in ])ossession of corixn'cal lu'rcilitainents, he is entitled 
to impute knowledge of that possession to all who deal for any 
interest in the property, and persons so dealing cannot be 
heard to deny notice of the title under which the possession is 
held;'* nor is it necessary that such possession should be 

Van V. Corpc, 3 M. «t K. '2C0, sujini, p. * MorK-y v. Clavcring, 29 Ronv. 84. 

92. * J''- 

' Spunncr v. Wnlsli. 10 Ir. T:.|. 38fi, • Taylor v. StU>1»ort. 2 V.-s. Jr. 4.'?7 

» llanliury v. Litililit-l.l. 2 M. <k Iv. Croftoii v. Orriisl.y. 2 Sell. A Lcf. B83 

C2!»; Fli:;lit r. Hart.Mi, 3 M. .t K. 2S2 ; r..w.ll »-. l)i!l.in* 2 Ha. ct lie. 416 

Kfltliorp"- f. H.'lirate, 1 Coll. '.^n:!; .Miir- (otchwcxmI ,■. IJairstow. 5 L. J Ch. N 

tin r. (-'olt<T. 3 J. it L. .'.07 ; Willimns c. S. 17'.»; .I<«iic3 v. Sniitli. 1 Ha. CO, 

Livc'cy. 18 IJcav. 2<»(); Hniintit v. .Mor- Kaihy v. Kiiliardsun, ".t Ha. 731 ; Att- 

ton, 3".Iur. X. S. llyS; Darlington v. (u-n. r. St<|ilu'ns. 1 K. it J. 750; Ilolmea 

Ilainillon. Kny. ri.'.O. v. rowtU, 8 D. M. it G. 680. 
•Smith r. e'ui.roii, 7 Hn. I'.'l. 



♦ Harris r. Carter, 3 Stew. 23:J ; Biickin^'hara r. Smith, 10 Ohio, 288; 
Patten r. HollidayHlmrfj, 10 IViin. 200; Hardy r. Summers, 10 G. & J. UIO ; 
Ilanly r. Morm-, :{2 M«' 2H7; HukIich r. United Stute.s 4 Wall. 232 ; More- 
land r. LemaBtcr, 4 Illackf. IWI ; Lamlis r. Bnint, 10 How. 875; Lea e. 
Polk Cdunty CnpiKT Co., 21 How. lUO ; Griswold r. Smith. 10 Vt. 452; 
Morgan r. .Morgan, 3 Stew. 3s;j ; Walker r. (tilhert, 1 Trecm. Ch. 85; 
Jenkins r. Bodlcy, 1 Smcd. iV: .Mar. Ch. 338 ; Witter r. Hightower, Smcd. 



riiAii) rroN tiiii;i) i'Aiiiii;s. 'jl.') 

COTitinually visililc, itr actively asscM-fed. If a man lias orico 
rccc'ivt'd rii^rlit.iil possession of land, he may go to any distance 
from it witliout .iiitlioii/.jiiir any servant, or ai^ont, or other 
j)erson, to enter ii]i(iii it.oi- ].iuk after it, may leave it for yea iv- 
iincultivated and unused, may set no mark of ownerslii]) u|m>ii 
it,and his possession may nevertheless continue, at h-ast unless 
his conduct atl'ord evidence of intentional abandonment. A man 
ulio knows, or cannot l»i' lieai^l to deny tliat he knows, another 
to l)C in possession of a cei'taiii jjroperty, cannot for any civil 
purpose, as ati^ainst him at least, be licard to deny having 
thereby notice of the title, or alleged title, under which, or in 
respect of which, the former is or claims to be in that posses- 
sion.' AVhere, accordingly, the purchaser of mines took 
possession under the agreement for })urchase, without any 
conveyance, it was held that a subsequent purchaser of land, 
without any exception of mines, took with notice of the 
agreement.' 

• Holmes v. Powell, 8 D. M. A- G. 5&0. * Ilolmos v. rotrcll, 8 D. M. <t G. 580. 



& Mar. 345 ; Smith r. Shane, 1 :^IcLean, 23 ; Grimstone v. Carter, 3 Paige, 
421 ; Diehl r. Page, 2 Green's Ch. 143 ; Baldwin v. Johnson, Saxton, 441 ; 
Knox V. Thompson, 1 Litt. 350 ; Brown r. Anderson, 1 Mon. 193 ; Johnston 
r. Glancey, 4 Blackf. 04. 

In tlii^; conntry, where the registration of deeds as matters of title is 
universally provideil for, courts of equity will not enlarge the doctrine of 
constructive notice, nor follow English cases, except with cautious atten- 
tion to their application to the circumstances of our country, and to the 
structure of our laws. Flagg v. Mann, 2 Sumner, 4y6. 

Possession is not evidence of notice, unUss that possession was known 
to the purchaser, nor can it be conclusive if it be known ; and, therefore, 
is not equivalent to recording. It is at most implied notice, which may 
be rebuttccL Uarris r. Arnold, 1 R. I. 126 ; Vaughan t. Tracey, 23 Mo. 
415 ; newes r. Wiswall, 8 Greenl. 94 ; Emmons r. Murray, 16 N. II. 385. 

The notice is merely an inference. It may not arise in some cases ; ii 
may be repelled in others ; and in others it may be restricted to some 
particular title. The rule, like all rules of circumstantial evidence, mu>t 
be governed by the particular circumstances of each case, and have a 



240 rnAin ii'on tiiikh rAHTir.'^. 

If thiTc 1k' a ttiKUit ill possession ft" Ian. 1, a pnrc-ha<^cr ia 
KmuuI l.y all the iMjuitics which the tenant conhl enforco 
a^inst the vcn<lor, and tlic i-qnity o\' tho tenant extend-s not 
onlv to interests ec»nnected with his tenancy, as in Taylor v. 
Stibbert,* bnt also to interests under collateral aj^'reenicnts," the 
principle heini; the same in both eiiacs, namely, that the pos- 
session of the tenant is notice that he has sonio interest, in the 
land, and that a purchaser havin;; notice of that fact in bound 
either to incpiire what the interest is, or to /,'ivo effect to it 
whatever it maybe."" If the tenant has ev««n chan^'ed his 
character by having agrcol to purchase the estiitc, bis posses- 
eion amounts to notice of his equitable title as purchaser.-" 

1 2 Vc8. Jr. 437. * Dnniola v. Dnvisnn, 16 Ves. 219; 17 

» Daniels v. Duvison. Ifi Vcs. 2J9; 17 Voh. 4:;:{; Croflnii «. (>rrll^l>y. '2 ."^cli. it 

Vcs. 433; Allen v. Authony, 1 Mer. Lef. .-is:!; rnwcll v. iHllon. 2 Un. A- Ik>. 

232 416; Wiibruiuuu v. live.sej, 18 Ucuv. 

• BnrnlinrtU v. Orconshickls, Moo. 20G. 

P. C. 32; Knight v. Bowyur, 2 D. 4 J. 

46a 



reasonable opcratioa. Cook v. Travis, 22 Barb. 338 ; Faust «. Smith. 23 

N. Y. 2.12. 

Possession under a recorded deed is not notice of righta under uu 
unrecorded deed. Great Falls Co. t». Worster, V, N. II. 412. 

There is no elRcacy in a possession which terminated before the nego- 
tiation that led to the purchase commenced. Wright ». Wood, 23 Pcnn. 

120. 

Joint popsession by a vendor and vendee is no notice of an unrecorded 

deed. Smith r. Yule, 31 Cal. 180. 

Posses-sion by a mortgagor utter foreclosure is not notice of any secret 
trust in his favor. Surmberger o. Webster, 1 Clark, IHS. 

Possession is notice to judgment creditors of the vendor. Massey r. 
Mcllwain, 2 Hill's Ch. 421 ; Muconc. Bheppard, 2 Humph. 835; Hackwith 
r. Damson, 1 Mon. 235. 

• Di^brow r. .Ion«s, Harring'sCh. 48; McMechon r. GrifTini;. 8 Pick. 1 1S». 
Possession tjy u tenant is not notice of the landlord's title. Smith « Dall. 13 

CaL 510. 

Th<' possession of a cestui que truH is not const nictive notice of the 
legal title of the tnistce. Scott r. Gallagher, 14 S. & It. \V.V.\. 

The po^iw-ssioii of an intruder is not notice of the title of a stranger. 
Wright c. Wood, 23 Penii. IJU. 



FRAUD UPON Til 1 1: 1) r'AIlTIIIS. 217 

TIio principle that pussi-ssion Ity a tenant of land is iifiticu 
of the terms of his hi'ldln:^' applies to a easo when; a man l>uyH 
property subject to an eascnicnf. He is hmind hy all flic 
equities whicli Ixmiid his vunth)rs.' So also when the mort- 
gagee of a l)uiial ■^ivtund had notice of tlie ])urpoRes to wliicli 
it was devoted, lie was hehl bound by the riglit of burial, tem- 
porary or in perpetm'ty, granted by his mortgagor when left in 
possession.^ 

Notice, however, of a past tenancy is not notice of the ten- 
ants' equitable interests,^ nor when the vendor is himself the 
tenant, and has acknowledged payment of the purchase money 
l)(,)th in the body of the conveyance and by the usual endorsed 
receipt, is the tenancy notice of his lien for any part thereof 
which may in tact remain unpaid.* Nor is notice of a tenancy 
necessarily notice of the tenant's equities as between vendor 
and purchaser.'* Nor is notice of a tenancy constructive notice 
of the lessor's title.® Nor M'ill a hond fide purchaser, other- 
wise without notice, be affected by the mere circumstance of 
the vendor having been out of possession for many years. A 
purchaser neglecting to inquire into the title of the occupier is 
not affected by any other equities than those Avhich such occu- 
pier may insist on. If a person equitably entitled to an estate 
lets it to a tenant who takes possession, and then the person 
having the legal estate sells to a person who purchases hond 
fide and without notice of the equitable claim, the purchaser 
will hold against the equitable owner, although he had notice 
of the tenant being in possession.' In all the cases the pos- 
session relied on has been the actual occupation of the land, 
and the equity sought to be enforced has been on behalf of the 

' Ilcrvcy V. Smith, 1 K <t J. 389; 22 * Nclthorpe v. Ilolgatc, 1 Coll. 20.?. 

Bcnv. AW. ' Jonos v. Smith, 1 lin. t>3, ;><t Wi^- 

■•' Murclnnd v. Richardson, 22 Bcav. ram, V.-C. ; Barnhardl v. Gruenshiclils, 

696. 9 Moo. P. C. 34. 

* Miles f. Langley, 1 R. ife M. 39 ; 2 ' Oxwith v. Phimmcr, 2 Vcrn. r>^&; 
R. «t M. •".26. Bnnihardt v. GreeusUields, 9 Moo. I*. C. 

* White V. Wakefield, 7 Sim. 401. 34. 



oiS n:\ri) rroN tuikh rAurii:s. 

party po in ]K)sscssion.' * Uuf it must hn reineiuborod tli.it l»y 
t/w jHirty in occupation h me;nit, not incrcly tlio jhtsuii who 
1)V himself and hi^^ hiborcrs tills the <;ruun<l, but tho pcreoii 
who is known to receivo the rents from the person in occupa- 
tion.' So also notice of the lei^al estate hein;; outstandinf^ is 
notice of the trusts oii which it is held;' and notice that the 
title deeds are in the possession of a third party, is notice of 
any charge he has ui)on the property.* 

So also, and npon the same i)rinciple, a person has been 
held to be affected with notice of a fraud affecting: a deed, and 
which the unusual manner in which it was executed ought to 
have suggested to his solicitor.* So also, if a bill be accepted 
in blank, and the acceptor was aware of the fact, there is notice 
of any fraudulent use that may have been made of it.' So 
also a lessee,' or a sub-lessee, has notice of the title of the im- 

' Bnrnlianlt r. Grcenshields, iloo. Sec Grocnslndo v. Dare. 20 Beav. 291 ; 

p (7 ;m (ircenrield t». Edwanln, 2 D. J. «i G. 

' kni'ht V. Bow7er, 23 Beav. 609, 582; Sutj. V. «fc P. 77t>. 
640, eif, 2 D. «fc J. 421. " Hntcii v. Scarles. 24 L. J. Ch. 22. 

•Anon. 2 Frccm. 137. See sharp v. Arbiitlinot, 13 Jiir. 2 IK. 

* Ilierii v. Mill. 13 Ves. 122; Drj'dcn ' Att.-(ien. v. liaeklinuse. 17 Ves. 293; 

« Frost, 3M. «1: C. 070. Butler v. Lord l'.)rtarruii,'l(jn, 1 Dr. 6s 

' * Kennedy v. Green, 3 M. «t K. 099 War. 20; Att.-Gen.r. ilall.lO Beov. 388. 



• Kendiill v. Lawrence, 23 Pick. 540; Holmes r. Stout, 2 Stockt. 419; 
Coleniun r. Barklew, 3 Dutch. :JJ7; Truesdale r. Ford, IH III. 210; Ely r. 
Wilcox. 20 Wis. 523; Blaukenskip v. Douglass, 20 Tex. 225; Putten r. 
Moore, 32 N. II. 382. 

The holder of an unrecorded deed must show a possesslo pftlis, an actual 
Jofti ^« po^scHsion consistent with his written title; and this |)<)8scssioii 
must l)c evidenced by an actual inclosure, or Bomethini; ctjuivalcnt, as 
Bhowinj; the extent and the fact of his dominion and control of the prcm- 
ii>e«. Ilavrnsp Dale, 18 Cul. 351). 

Tin- p<»s.>«ssion nmst be such an occupancy of the land as will put any 
person upon intjuiry, and indicate the party of whom impiiry is to bo 
made. Green r. Drinker, 7 W. A; H. 440; ]{ogers f. Jonc-t, » N. 11.204; 
Wiirmms r. Sprigg, Ohio St. R 585. 

1'osxes.sion is not notice, when the purchaser also knows that tho pos- 
iiesAor has been in possevtion for huiuc time without claiming title. Mat* 
thews r. Dcmerritt, Shep. 312. 



FRAUD uroN Timci) rAUTii:s. 241) 

mediate and (in the case of a sub-lessee) orif^inal lessee* So 
where a tiiniily solicitor, who had jjrepared a niarria;;e settle- 
mont, became the apparent purchaser of the CHtato under a 
iictitious exercise of the usual power <»t' sale, and Hubse<piently 
executed instruments purporting to vest the estate in the hus- 
band, and tiicii, as the husband's solicitor, a])])lied for a loan on 
morty:a<re, and delivered an abstract of the title as above re- 
ferred to in the usual way, with his name as solicitor, it was 
held that the i)urchasc'r had imjdied notice of his having been 
the solicitor who prei>ared the settlement, and of the irregular- 
ity of the nominal purchase.^ So, a mortgagee having notice 
that a bill mIucIi formed part of the consideration for the pur- 
chase of the estate by the mortgagor, remained unpaid, has 
been held bound to inquire wliethcr the vendor has any lien on 
the estate, the deed of conveyance leaving the point doubtful.^ 
So, a purchaser dealing with trustees for sale at a time or under 
circumstances suggestive of the probability of the sale being a 
breach of trust, is bound to inquire and see whether any such 
breach of trust is in fact being committed.'' So also notice of 
a deed is not only notice of its contents, but of the facts to a 
knowledge of which the insisting on its production would have 
necessarily led.^ So also a man who buys property from an 
agent, with distinct notice that the i>arty with wliom he is 
dealing is an agent, lias cast upon him the liability of sustain- 
ing the transaction just as nmch as the agent himself. If the 
transaction could not be upheld by the agent, neither could it 
be supported by a purchaser from that agent, if he deals with 
him in his character of agent.® 

AV^hen, however, a sale by fiduciary vendors is apparently 
regular, a purchaser need not inquire into collateral questions, 

' Stwaman v. Poole, 6 Ila. lO:?. See * Stroughill a. Anstcy, 1 D. iL A G. 

Cosser i-. Collingc, 3 M. «fe K. 283. 635. 

' Uobiuson v. Briggs, 1 Sm. «t G. * Pcto v. Ilrtininoml, 30 Beav. 495. 

188. • Slolony v. Kernan, 2 Dr. «fc War. 4a 

* Frail v. Ellis. IG Beav. 350. 
17 



-."iO riiAin rroN Tiiir.n 1'aktii:s. 

sucli ns tho iiKulc ill whicli the saU> has ln'i'n ooiuluctcd,* 
althoiitjli ]\v will l»i' ;int'ct('«l with notice of a hreac-h of trust 
clearly (Icduciltle tVuni facts appearing in the assurance.' Nor, 
althougli a purchaser of a Icjise is hound to know from whom 
the lessor derived his title, is he alVi'cted with notice of all the 
circumstances under wliidi he so derived it.^ Nt>r, Ht^mhle^ is 
notice of a lease notice of collateral facts mentioiu'il in the 
lease.* Nor, on the ])urchase of A, one of two adjoinini; 
estates belonging to the same owner, is notice of building 
covenants entered into by such owner with a mortgagee of the 
adjoining estate B, notice of tlic expenditure on both estates 
of money which, under the covenant, ought to have been ex- 
l)cnded on 1> exclusively.' 

The possession of a client's deeds by a solicitor is so usual, 
and so much in the ordinary course of transactions, that where 
a man purchases an estate, and is informed that the deeds arc 
in the hands of the solicitor of the owner of the estate, there 
is nothing which renders it necessary for him to inquire under 
what circumstances the solicitor held the deeds.' AVhen a 
solicitor acquires by contract a ditierent interest beyond what 
his character of solicitor confers (such as e<iuilable mortgagee), 
it is incambent on him immediately to give clear and distinct 
notice of such interest to all persons in visible ownership of 
the estate. Such a case is not within the ])riiicij»lo of the cases 
in which a i>urchaser of land has been held bouiul to in<juiro 
of the tenant in possession the nature of his interest.'' 

The omission of a purchaser of pro])erty to inquire alter 
the title deeds is gross negligence, and will affect him with 
the knowledge which he might have obtained upon iiKjuiry. 

• See Bori'U v. Dnnn, U Ma. -IKt, AM, ' Att-Gm. i-. Ulncklunisc, 7 Vcs. 203. 
Pec Ware r. Ejjiiiont, 1 I). .M. «t (i. * -Sof l)arlin;;ton r. llBinilton. Kny, 
4G<i. f'-"'^- 

* 8po Atl..<»pn, V. VMZi'U'r. <". l'.<nv. ' Hnrrytnnii v. Collinn, 18 Boav. 19. 
ITiO; Kir I'. I/'jrJ Dungauuou. 1 \)r. &. * Uor.oii v. Wiili.uim, 3 V. «t J. 150. 
War. Wi, WL ' ^i. 



FK.vri) ri'oN' riiiKiv i-Ainir.s. 251 

Tlio possession of the legal estate will iinl protect n man who 
has omitted to inquire after the title deed.-. <tr \\\u) ae('(;i>trt u 
iVivoloiis excuse fur their nun-production against the claim of 
an iuiKiceiit ])art_v.* So also, a man taking iVuiii a vendur wlm 
lias not possession of the deeds, will take Avith notice of any 
claim which the party in possession of the title deeds has.* 
The omission, however, of a purchaser to inquire fur the deeds 
will not all'ect him with knowledge of fraud committed by the 
person of whom he was hound to make inquiry.^ 

Though notice uf a deed is notice of its contents, the mere 
fact that a man has been witness to the execution of a deed 
will not of itself fix him with notice of the contents.* !N^or is 
notice of a will passing all the testator's real estates generally, 
and not specifically, notice of all the particular estates which 
the testator had to pass.' Nor if a purchaser has notice only 
that a draft of the deed is prepared, and not that the deed was 
executed, would he be bound by notice, although the deed was 
actually executed ; for a purchaser is not to be afiected by 
notice of a deed in contemplation.® 

A mere statement that further information is to he had at 
the office of a company, is not enough to put persons upon 
inquiry whether statements put forward by directors are true 
or false.'' Ihit if a man, on being specially referred to another 
for information, neglects to apply to him, he will be held to 



' WortliinEjton v. Morsjnn, 16 Sim. Bozon v. Willinms, 8 T. and J. 150, 

647; Tvlce v. Webb, t; Beav. ns'i ; Al- supra, pp. 110, 141. 
leii V. Knight, 5 Ha. 272 ; 11 Jur. 527 ; ' llipkiiis v. Amery, 2 Giff. 292. 

llewctt I'. L<»)<c!iiorc, Ila. 4 f'J ; Col- * Mocatta c. Munratrovil, 1 P. Wins. 

Ver V. Fiacb, 5 II. L. >tO.-) ; TiKlosIoy v. 30."5 ; Ik-cla'tt v. Conlloy, 1 Bro. C. C. 

Lodge, 3 Sm. <t G. o43 ; BeiTV-IIeriick S."i7; RanclifTe ;•. Parkins, 6 Dow, 149, 

V. Attwood, 2 1). <fc J. 21 ; Atterburv v. 222 ; ISusr. V. it P. 751. 
Wnllis. 8 D. M. d- G. 454; Peto v. Ham- ' Panclitle v. Parkins, G Dow, 149, 

mond, 30 Bcav. 495; Worinalil i-. Mait^ 222-224. 

land, 35 L. J. Cli. (59; Ilopijood t'. ' Cctliay v. Sydenham, 2 Bro. C. C. 

Krnest, 3 D. .1. it S. IIH, supra, pp. 140, 391. Seu Jones f. Suiitli, 1 Ila. 63 ; I 

141. Ph. 25f.. 

» Prvdcn .'. Frost, 3 if. & C. 070. ' Smith v. Reese River Co., L. R. 2 

See llicrn f. Mill, 13 Ves. 122. Comp. Eq. 209. 



*J.)*J ri:\ri» rrox timim) rAirrirs. 

have notice of wli.it lie niiixlit liave Iranit iiixiii ininiiry.* So 
also if a man. liaviiii; n-asonalile i;r(>iiiiil> to suspect the 
existence of n fact of importance, asks one of tlio ])artie8 to 
the transaction, wli(» refuses all information, l)Ut does not ask 
other parties, Mlmm he has reason to helieve to he ahle and 
willini^ to i^ive liiiu iiit'.»rni:itii>n, his i<^noranco is willt'nl.' A 
party rclyim; on his iirtioranec of fact must show not only that 
he had not the information, l»ut tliat ho could not witli dili- 
gence have ohtaincd it.' 

A man who in dcaliuLr for property is ti>ld of anyfhinij as 
aflectiui; the property, thoui^h incorrectly, can iii>t rely on 
what is told him, hut is hound to make further inquiry, and to 
ascertain the exact truth.* If a man knows that another has 
or claims an interest in ]>roperty, he, in dealin<j^ for that prop- 
erty, is bound to inquire what that interest is, althoui^h it may 
be inaccurately described.' If a man be told t.r has notice that 
a certain instrument affects the ]>roi)crty in (piestion in some 
])articular respect, lie will be lixed with notice of its provisions 
if it should turn out to alfect the i)roperty in other respects 
also.' xSotice of a charge to an imletinite amount, although 
the notice l»e inaccurate as to the particulars, or the extent of 
the charge, is sufficient to i»ut uj)on inquiry a party dealing 
for the pro])erty subject to the charge, and if the actual charge 
ai>pear afterwards to be incorrectly described in the notice, it 
Ls nevertheless sufficient as a ground for giving priority for 
the true amount nf the charge as against the i>arty who re- 
ceived tiie incorrect notice, but made no impiiry.' 

In Taylor r. leaker,* a party, at the time of making his 

' Wn'»<iti !•. Wnrin^'. 1.'. llnv. l.M. ' Tuvlur v. I^ik.r, .'> IVi. nofi ; Jnck 

' I;niiil»ri;;K<' r. Mo^h. :i .liir. N. S. fiK. non r. Ilowc. 2 Sim. A St. IT.'i ; Farrow 

• WiiMHi c. Waring', 1.'. lltiiv. l.M. i-. Kl•t•^, i Kiiiv. IS; Mildiell v Stow. 

* Wilwm V. Hart, 'J. II. A .M .'iM ; L. nnl, .'«.'» L. .». Cli. 39». See Jonus v. 
K 1 Cli. Ajip. •4i'.:i. Sc-i- .loiics I'. Sinitli, Smitli. 1 I'll. 'J.'i."k. 

1 I'h. 'i.'.S. Comii. rr HriglitH TruHl, ' (iibsoii v. In-jo, •'■ Iln. 124. 

Ul r-nv. 430. '6 I'ri. 3">il. 

•Gibson V. In^o, f. Ho. 11'.'. IJI. ."-oo 
AtL^Gcn. r. JyncH, '.! .Fur. '•'•V>') 



lUAl I) llMtN illlKl) I'AUTIKS. 253 

piirc'haso, and licforc it was ina<le, liad actual notice tliat a 
certain j)crs<»n had a judgment and warrant <jf attcjrncy wliicli 
affected the })iir('liased estate. It turiiiMl diit, however, that he 
liad a niort^'a^'o and nut a jud::;nient, and the court held that 
tlio purchaser, havin;^ notice that he had an interest afFectin«:j 
the projK'rty, could not ward oii' the claim to the incumbrance, 
only because the nature of the claim was diifercnt from that 
which the notice c(.>n\"cycd to liiiu.' 'fhc j)j-in(ipl(.' was carried 
further in Penny v. AVatts.^ A man there, who claimed under 
a marriage settlement as a purchaser without notice, had 
notice before his marriage that a legatee had given up her 
legacy under a will in lavor of tlie intended wife, to whom 
the estate upon which it was charged belonged, and which was 
comprised in the subsequent marriage settlement ; and had 
also notice that the intended wife liad in consequence devised 
to the legatee a portion of the estate, and that the legatee was 
dead. This was held by Lord Cottcnham to be notice as lead- 
ing to inquiry of an e<piitable revcrsionai-y title in the husband 
of the legatee under a subsequent agreement with the lady, 
the devisor, before her marriage, to convey the devised estate 
to him. It has, however, been considered by Lord St. Leon- 
ards,' and in Abbott v. Gerahty,* that this case carries the 
principle too far. 

Though a man, who has actual notice that the property in 
respect of which he is dealing, is in fact atiected by a particu- 
lar instrument, is bound to examine that instrument, he is not 
bound to examine instruments which are not directly or pre- 
sumptively connected with the title to the property in ques- 
tion, merely because he knows that they exist, and may by 
possibility aft'ect it. If an instrument docs not necessarily 



• See Steadman v. Poole, IG L. J. Cb. ' Sn?. V. d- P. 766. 

349; 6lln. XWZ. * A Ir. Cli. io. 

" 1 Mac. ck G. 150. 



12.")} ri:.\i i» riM)N TiiiiM) rAKTins. 

nffcct tlic title, luit oiilv may I'l" may not do so aroordiii^ to 
t'ircunistuncc'S, tin- I'liii—ion t<> oxamiiu- it A\ill imt fix a jiarty 
■with «;ross lu'i^lii^oiici', if tluTc is no rc'a{>(tn t«» Mi|»jtnse that ho 
may have acted otlierwise than I'airly in the transaction.* !Nor 
is notit'c tliat certain circumstances exist wliidi may hy possi- 
bility atVcct till' I'mpcrty in dispute sutlicient t<> put a man 
iipi>!i iiKjuii'v. it" 111- apiicar t<» have acti'<l Ihiily in the transac- 
tion.* A j)urcliascr, lor instance, Avill not he allected by an 
ambiguous recital,^ or by circumstances inducin<^ merely a 
suspicion of fraud/ or by the ibiual trust of a term to attend 
the inheritance, where no reference is made to any particular 
instrument or course of limitations; ' so notice of there being a 
change of solicitors who are professionally to re])resent a ])ar- 
ticular interest, is not, in itself, notice of a change in the 
ownership of such interest;' nor is the mere fact of a daughter, 
soon after coming of age, giving securities to a creditor of her 
father in payment of his debt, of itself a ground for imjtuting 
to the creditor knowledge of undue influence having been 
exerted over her by her fatlier.' To atlect the creditor witli 
notice of undue influence, it is not enough to show that ho 
was aware of the reluctance of the daughter to concur in the 
security.® 

In Ilcrvey r. Smith," the purchaser of a house to which a 



' Kcnni'v I'. Browne, :t Kidir. I'. C. * M'Qucon r. Fnrqulinr, 11 Vos. 482. 

512; .l«n.-8 f. Smith. 1 lln. j:!. 1 IMi. Sue D.hI.U v. llill.s li 11. it M. V^i',. 

•-Til ; W«-ht r. llcid. ti 11(1. 'J 111; Ware v. » Dart. V. «!: 1'. M'.rt. 

Kirrnont, I D. M. it (J. ICo; linrnmnn * Wi.st c. Uoiil. '2 Ilii. '210. 

r. Colliiix, IH IW-av. 11; <ir<'en-<i)i(li' v. ■" TliornhiT i. .'^hiunl, I'J Ren v. 1589. 

Ituri-.'lOlU-nv.'iHi; y.'r liritrliiVTrust, Sot* CoIjIx-U v. I!r«>i-k. '-•(» Henv. ft'.»4. 

'.Jl IJcnv. •!:!«); St<'jili<iisoii v. HoyHc, 5 Cninp. Kh|h'V i'. Lako. 10 Ha. -jrtO; Sor- 

Ir. (h. 4ul ; Cox f. OiviMilon, Ullk-av. coinbi« v. ."^nundiTu, lU lienv. .'IK'i ; 

:j7M; General SU-ain Navipilion Co. i'. HOnloo v. Dawaun, ib. 6ti3. See «u/<r<i, 

Uolt. 6 C. H. N. S. r,M: iVrrv ••. Hoil. p. IHO. 

'.i I). F. A J. .'IH. S.o Jir Nal'ional Life ' Kho«lc« i-. Cook. 4 L. .F. Cli. 14lt, 2 

A^''^lrnncc an<l InvcHtiiii-nt Co. HI L. J. Sim. tt .^t. 4S8, S<m' lilai'kie v. I'inrk, 

Ch. 8'iH. i.'> lliav. r.lt.V Coiiii.. Maitlaud «. Ir- 

» /',. vin_'. !.'• Sim. 441. 

* \vcnnov v. lirowiu-. a Ui<!;,'. 1*. C. " Ti IJcuv. 'i'.CJ. 

r>ia Bc«»'2 lift. n:.. 



FKAUD UrON TIIIUI) rAUTlKS. J.">..» 

wall having' fourteen flues or c-ljimncys in it belonged, twelve 
only, however, of wliicli were used by the house, was held 
hiMiml hy this fact to know that the other two niii.-f have 
been used by his nei_i,dd)or. I'ut tin- doctrine of constructive 
notice was carried too far in that ease.^ 

Kor is a man bound to examine a deed or di>cument, 
•which does not necessarily from its very nature affect the 
|)r(i|Mi1y in (jucstion, if he be told that it does not affect it, and 
he acts fairly in the transaction, and liclievcs the representa- 
tion to be truc.^ The effect, indeed, of what would otherwise 
be notice, may be destroyed by misrepresentation. A man to 
whom a particular and distinct representation is made is 
entitled to rely on the representation, and need not make any 
further iiuiuirv, althoUi;]i there arc circumstances in the case 
from whicii an inference inconsistent M'ith the representation 
might be drawn, and which, independently of the representa- 
tion, would have been sufficient to put him upon inquiry,' or, 
althouf^h he is told that further information may be had on the 
matter by making inquiries from a particular person, or at a 
particular place.* A man is entitled to rely on the representa- 
tions of the vendor as to the contents of a deed, and is not 
bound to examine the deed itself? So, also, a man who i)ur 
chases shares in a company on the faith of a prospectus, may 
rely on the statements made therein, and is not bound to 
ascertain whether they are true." The mere fact that he may 
have attended a meeting of the company is not a sufficient 



" Sii". V. <fr p. TC). * Grnsvennr v. Grccn, 28 L. .f. Ch. 

•Jones .•. Smitli. 1 Ha. 43, 1 I'lu 1T3; M'Culloch v. Grca;ory, 1 K. tt J. 

251; AV I5rii:l>f9 Trust, '11 Benv. 430. 286; AV Hriuht's Trust, 21 Benv. 430; 

'Van V. Corpp, 3 M. & K. 2C.'.) ; Cox v. Covt-nton, 31 Bejiv. 378; Ex- 

Fliixht f. Barton. (7>. 28-2 ; Tope f. Gar- parte Briu:ir9, L. 11. 1 Kq. 483. See 

Inml. 4 Y. it C. 3'.t4 ; Wilson v. Short, .iliirtin v. t'oUor, 3 J. <k L. finri. 
Ha. 366, 367; Vignollcs v. Bowen, 12 " Sniitli r. Reese Kiver . Silver Mining 

Ir Kq. 385; Cox iC .Middleton, 2 Drew. Co.. L. U. 2 Eq. 264; blewart'a Case, L. 

'20'.\ supra, pp. 80, 81. K. 1 Cli. .\\'\: 574. 

' .-^niilli V. Uo-L- liiver Silver Min- 
ing Co., L. 11. 2 ilq. 264, 



256 im:\i I) ri'ON iiiikk rM;iii>'. 

pronnd for lixiiiL' liim with notice of tlie falsity of the ropro- 
eentntioiis in the prosiK't-tus.' Nor \vill a shardjohU-r in a 
con>i>anv he alU'ctiMl witli knowU'di^'.' of the (li»i-uini'nts refer- 
red to in the nienioramhini, or artich-s of association of a com- 
pany, as to he dehai-ntl from coiMidainini; of any false or 
deceptive statements which may have heen ma<k' au to tho 
contents of those documents.'' 

If a hoiid ^P't/t' inquiry he made in tlie ])ropi'r <piarter, and a 
rcasonahle answer he i^iven, a man may rest satistied witli the 
information, and need lutt make any further inciiiiry.' A man, 
for instance, \\h'>. on tlic purchase of in-ojurty hond Jiihy 
inquires for the title deeds, is uot hound to make further 
inquiry, if a rcasonahle excuse is made for their not forth- 
comin^^/ So, also, if deeds are dep(\<itcd with a man by the 
other jiartv to the transaction, which ])ur[iort, or are repre- 
sented to he all the material deeds relatiu'^ to tlie estate, and 
he honestly believes the representation to be true, he is not 
guilty of [,'ross ne<;li«j^ence, if he abstains from further incpiiry 
on the subject.' The fact that the person with whom he is 
dealiuj^', and who makts the rci)resentation, may be his own 
solicitor, is immaterial, if the representation was honestly be- 
lieved to be true.'' 

A representation or an answer to an inipiiry will not, how- 
ever, (lis])ense with the necessity of furtlu-r incpiiry, unless it 
be made bv a person upon whose ri'|»rescntatinn the other 
party is entitled to rely and rest satistied. The rejuvsentations 
of a man biml him as far as his own inti'rest is eoncernt'd, but 

• .'^tcwort'H ('ftrt<. I^ R. 1 CI). A|>p. * Hewitt v. I.ooscmnro. II«. MO: 

fi74. Sc« Wi-bsU-r'H Cam-, L. U. 'i Va\. EH|.in v. I'.-mb.'rU.n, :t D. .t J. 517, 

741. «M/.c.i. p. HI. 

» KiKThf. (Vntrul V.Miczu.lii Uailwny ' Ki.hirt* v. Cnifl. 2 D. A J. 1 ; 

Co., 'A I). .F. «t S. Vl'L Hunt v. YMw^. '2 l>. F. «t •'. n7K. 

•J.iiifs r. Sinitli, 1 lift. rJ; Hiril v. • UobiTts v. Cruft. '1 D. <t J. 1 ; 

Fox 11 lift. 47; JoncH v. WillianiH. '1\ Hunt v. KIiiu-h. '1 \). V. <k .1. 578. Seo 

Ii«-nv. 47 ; DftWHon .•. rriiic'. •> l>. A- .1. I'.rry f. 11-. 11. ib. :J8; Cory v. Eyro, 1 

44 ; K»|>in v. l'cinl»«Tl<»n, .'« I». it J. ul7; U. J. di S. 10». 
CarUr v Cnrlcr, :j K. &. J. r>l«. 



FRAll) I I'ON IlllinJ I-AiniKS. li.'n 

do not l)in(l the interests ofotluT ])arties, luile^s ho was anthrjr- 
ized by them to make the re[)resentation8. An under-lesset.' 
must not rest satisfied \\ ifli the representations of his lesi^or, 
mIio is also a sulilessee, as to tlie covenants in the Icic. ij,. 
must go l)ack to some one wlio can give him more complete 
information.' Nor sliould a man who deals with an agent 
liaving a limited antliority rest witisiied with liis representa- 
tions as to the extent of his antliority, hut should refer to tlie 
ju'incipal for fnrtlur information. ~ So, also, a man \\ho 
accepts a conveyance without iiny previous investigation, rely- 
ing on tlio mci-G assurances of tlie vendor that lie is absolute 
owner, will be held to have constructive notice of the 
title, although he may have acted without any fraudulent 
intention.* 

The effect of what would be otherwise notice may be 
destroyed not only by actual misrcj)resentation, but by mere 
silence, or by anything calculated to deceive, or even lull sus- 
picion on a particular point.'' If the vendor of a lease be 
informed by the ])urcliaser of his ol)jcct in buyini,^, and the 
lease contains covenants which will defeat that object, the 
silence of the vendor is ecpiivalent to a misrepresentation.' 
But if the agent of the purchaser has had the opportunitv of 
inspecting the original lease, the vendor need not inform the 
purchaser of unusual covenants which will prevent him from 
carrying out his intention.^ 

Although a man who has been induced to enter into a 
transaction by misrepresentation might have detected the mis- 



Tnrlccr v. Why«c. 1 IT. & M. 167. Drew. 1. nfTil. 1 Jur. N. S. U9 ; How 

See Clements i'. Welles, L. K. 1 Eq. ard v. ClmfVers, 2 1 )r. & Sm. '2:ii\'. 

200. ♦ I'ope I'. Garland, 4 Y. A- C. S94 ; 

» Wilson »•. Hart, 2 II. & M. 551, L. Bartlett t>. Salmon, 6 D. il. «t ii. i] • 

R. 1 Ch. App. 46:5. Darlin-^ton i-. Hamilton. Kav, 550, Dart' 

' Jaokson r. Kowe, 2 Sim. <t St. 472, V. A 1'. 75, xiijn-n. p. \)\. ' ' 

475. Sec Jones i-. Smith, 1 I'll. 255; ' Flii^lit r. liartou, o M. it CI. 282. 

>"eesora v. Clnrk^-on, 2 lla. 17:: ; West v. « Morley v. Clavering, 2a Beay, 84. 
Reid, ib. 260; Proctor v. Cooper, 2 



258 ruAi i> I PON 'rim;i> tahtiks. 

representation lon<; het'ori' the time he did, he is iKit bound to 
make in(|niries, until there is 8onicthin<; to raise suspieion.* 

Constructive notiee only oi)erates in eases atlectin<; title. 
A mere constructive notice of circumstances of ne;;li;^ence in 
the mode of conducting a sale is entirely collateral to any 
question of title.' 

It is not necessary that notice should be broui^ht homo to 
the party interested himself It is enough, if it is brought 
home to his agent, solicitor, or counsel,' There is no distinc- 
tion in point of legal effect between personal notice to the 
party and ii(.)tiee alleeting liini through tlie medium of his 
agent.* ^Notice to the agent is notice to the principal: for 
upon general ])rineiples of ])ublic policy it must be taken for 
granted tliat the i»riiicipal knows whatever the agent knows,'* 
As a general rule, the principal is deemed to have notice of 
whatever is communicated to his agent wliilst acting as such in 
the transaction to which the communication relates.' The 
])rincipal or client is fixed with the knowledge of every fact 
material to the transaction which his agent or solicitor either 
knows or has imjiarted to him in the course of his employ- 
ment, and which it was his duty to communicate, whether it 
be communicated or not.' Tiie rule that notice to an a^'ent is 



• llawlins v. Wicklinm. 3 D. <t J. 304. * Toulmin f. St.-ero, 3 Mcr. 224. 

» liorcll V. Dnnn, 2 lla. 410. » IJnnk of l'u\ud Stutos v. Davics, 2 

* iJutli nmi M<iiitii;,'uV Cum-. 3 I'll. f'n. Hill (.\iiii'r ) It.l. 

110; nn.llMTloii r. llutl. 2 Veni. 571 ; * Siiiiiif.nil i: llaiiily. 23 Wond. 

Mtt«l<l<»x r. iladilox, 1 \ »'8. CO; llui^lios (.\iiut.) 2(>s ; Hank of lijilotl States v. 

r. (iarntT, 2 Y. d: C. :'.28 ; Areli. r v. Davi<s. 2 Hill ( Aimr. I. •i:.2. 

Hudson, 15 I.. J. Cli. 211. ' Sheldon r. Cox, Ami). t;2« ; Roddy 



• Ilovcy V. Hliinrhanl, 19 N. 11. 145; IJo.«.<i r. Houston, 2") Mi^s. ."iDl ; 
JontH r. Humforil. 21 lowii, 217; .Miller r. Frahy, 21 Ark. 22; Walker r. 
Ayn-H, 1 Clarke, 4411; In^'nlls r. Mor^'un. 10 N. Y. 17^; Smith r. Oliver, 
31 Ala, 39; Wortluu r. "VVilliuinH. 24 HI, 07; Heed's Appeal, :J1 IVnn. 207; 
Willi.'* r. Vallette. 4 Met. (Ky.) ISiJ. 

Notice to a inau is uot notiee to his wife. SiH»nubIe r. Snyder, 7 llill, 
in. 



ruAii) ri'oN riiii:i) tartiks. 



'J.")'.) 



notice to till* iiriiici|);il :ii. plies to cu-is wlicn; tlir ]>riiicii)al ia 
ail infant.* 

The iidticc wliicli afl'ccts a ]iriiicii>al or client tlirou^'-li lii--^ 
a^ent or solicitor is ^enei all v treated as const niclive notice; 
but inasmueli as the principal or client is bound by the notice 
wliether it be coniniunicated to liim or not, and is not ])re- 
sunicd to liavc the knowled.^^e, merely because the circum- 
stances of the case put liim (»n intpiiry, such nntice may more 
properly be treated as actual notice, or if it is necessary to 
make a distinction between the knowledge which a man pos- 
sesses liimself and tliat which is known to his agent or solici- 
tor, the hitter may be called im})uted knowledge." 

Kotice to an agent, solicitor, or counsel should, in order t) 
bind a princi])al or client, be notice in the same transaction.*^ 
But the rule is subject to a (pialilication where, from the sur- 
rounding circumstances, or from the one transaction being so 
closely connected with another, the agent or solicitor must be 
presumed to have remembered the previous one. In all such 
cases the notice, though not in the same transaction, is never- 
theless binding.' f 

«■. Willianis, 3 J. AL. ir,; Marjoribnnks, « Fitzsrfral.l v. Fauconbcrg, Fitzg. 

r. Ilovutuk-n. Dru. 11 ; Caiitiock r. .laun- 211 ; W a nick '•. Warrick, 3 Atk. 29.); 

cev 27 L. J. Cli. 57; Ej^piii v. I'cnibcr- Wursk'V >: Lord Scarborough, ih. 3it2; 

ton. 3 D. <t J. 551 ; Wvllie v. rullen, lliirn v. Mill. 13 Yes. 114; Kilgecumbo 

32 L. J. Cli. 782 ; 15oursot v. Savage, L, v, Straiiccr, 1 Jiir. 400; Fuller r. Bcn- 

R. 2 Eq. 134. See Taml. 176. ;»>• Sir iiett, 2 Ha. 394; TyUe V. Webb, 6 

J. Leaih. M. K.; Spaight v. Cownc, 1 Beav. 552; Finch r. Shaw 19 Beav. 

U. it M. 3 •">'•'. 5^"; Colyer r. F'inch, 6 II. L. 905. 

* Touhnin I'. Stcere. 3 Mer. 222. See Steed »•. Wiiitaker, Barnard's Cli. 

» See Touhnin v. Stcerc. 3 Mcr. 222. 220 ; Ilauiilton »•. Koyse, 2 Sch. & Lef. 

»3 1). «t J. 554.p(rLordChelinslor(i. 315; M-uiitford i'. Scott, 3 MadJ. 34, 

See Mayhew v. Eanics, 3 B. & C. 001 ; T. & \X. 274. 

Cooksoiw- Lee, 23 L. J. Ch. 473 ; Evre 'Tnuhuin r. Stecre, 3 M.-r. 222; 

r. lUu-mestcr, 10 II. L. 103. Coiiip. IIargrea\e-i r. Itothwell, 1 Keen, 154; 

Wilde V. Gibson, 1 II. L. 005. Ni.\ou v. Hamilton, 2 Dr. <k ^\ al. 391 ; 



* McCormick v. Wlieclcr, 3G 111. 114 ; Bracken r. :Miller, 4 W. & S. 102 ; 
Hood V. Falincstock, 8 Watts, 480 ; Grant r. CoU-, 8 Ala. 519; Lawrence 

V. Tucker, 7 Grecnl. 19.'); Boyd r. VantUrkcmp, 1 Barb. 2sT. 

t Hurt r. Farmers', ice. Bank, 33 Vt. 2o2; Biuuit-mlial r. Brainerd, 38 

VI. 410 ; The Distilled Spirits, 11 Wall. o53. 



•J(U) 



ni.vrn rros tiiiud I'Aurir.s. 



The rulo tliat notice to an ap'iit or solicitor is notice to a 
principal or a client, applies where the name solicitor or a-^ent is 
eini)lovc(l Ity both parties to the transaction,* or is himself the 
vendor.' The mere circumstance, however, of there hein:,' 
only one solicitor in the business does not necc -arily consti- 
tute him the solicitor of hi'tli parties so as to allect both with 
notice. It does not follow that if there be not a solicitor em- 
ployed on both sides, the solicitor who does act is the solicitor 
of both parties. To have this elVect, there must be a consent 
to accept him as such, or somethin*; cciuivalciit thereto.' 

The rule that notice to a solicitor is notice to the client 
applies only as between ])arties dcaliiiir hostilely with each 
other.* 

It is not every descrii>tion of kno\vled,i,'e possessed by a 
solicitor emjiloyed in any ])artirular transaction that can be 
treated as the actual knowled^^c of the client. All matters 
afFectinj; the title to ])roperty, or the interests of other ])erson9 
in connection with it, all circumstances which would entitle 
parties to eiiuitable priorities, or changj the character of ri^j^hts, 



Fuller r. I?<'nnrtt. 2 TTii. SOt ; ncranl v. Frost, 3 M. A 0. GT<'; .Miirjorihiinks 

f. O.IU- lly. 3 Dr. .t War. JU; MarJDri- i'. lL»vciuk-i), Dm. 11; U<>l)ins<>n v. 

banks.'. lioven.U-n, Dru. 11. See lvl'.:i>- IJri,'-.:^. 1 Sm. it(}. 188; Ji'e Uorke'a 

ciiiiil)c r. Stranu'er, 1 Jur. IKU; lie Estjitf. 13 Ir. Cli. 371. 
Smallninn's ¥MuU\ Ir. L. K. ■> K-i :U. ' Kspin v. IVinlH-rton, 4 Drew. 333. 3 

Cotiii'. Wilde I'. (Jib^on, 1 H. I.. Co:.; D. it J. 517; Wytlit-.s t». Laboiichore. 3 

but hc-c Sii:;. L. 1'. <>U. D. ct J. 591; Lloyd c. Attwood, lA. 

' Le Neve »•. Le Neve, 3 Atk. 01ft; ftl4 ; i'crry v. lloll, 'i D. F. «t J. 38. 

Toulinin I'. Steero. .l.Mer. tilo; Fulleri'. See Le Novo t-. Lc .Neve. 3 Atk. 646 ; 

llennilt, 2 Ha. 3'.U; Drvden i'. Frost, Kendall c. llulirt, 11 Jur. 8t',4 ; Hewitt 

3 M. «l: <'. 67'i; Uoddv "f. Willinin-t, 3 v. LuoseMKin-, '.• Ma. 4 !'.» ; Cobbett r. 

.1 <t L. 1»'.; Frail r. KliiM. nUlc-av. :t50; llrock, 'JO Heav. 5t»l; Atterbury i-. 

Tw.-edale v. Tw.-clnle, '^3 Heav. :{4 1 ; Wnllii, 8 D. M. it (}. 454.Su-. V. 4 

AtU-riiUry v. Wallis, H D. .M. it <J. 454; \\ 772. C'onip. Tweedale i'. Tweodalc, 

O^filvie V. JcntrrcBon, 2 (Jiff 353; 23 Heav. 311. 

Spal^^lit V. Cownc, 1 H. it .M. 35'J ; « Austin v. Tuwuey, L. U. 2 ih. Ajip. 

linur^ot p. Savnije. L. H. 2 V.<\. 131. 143. 

' .'^hclduo t<. Cux, Ainb. 624 ; Dryden 



Notiro ooniinuniratcil to an nLjcnt by men- rumor .-ind talk iijmn tlio 
Btn-<t conicr.-*, iH not kn(»\vl«? lu'f ihat will biud tlic |)riiicij),il. Kccnan r. 
MibBOuri, &C. Ins. Co. 12 Iowa, TJO. 



l^iiAUD I r(JN Tiiiiu) I'AUTina. 'J.i'A 

which (lopcnd upon want of notice, if IvMoum to tlio solicitor, 
hiivo the same ollect us if actually known to the client. IJut 
this imputed knowledge will not extend to niatter.s which have 
no reference to rights created or affected by the transaction, 
hut whicli iiR'ivIy relufe to the m(»tives and objects of the 
parties, or to the consideration upon which the matter is 
foujided.^ Nor does the employment of a solicitor to do a 
mere ministerial act, such as the procuring the execution of a 
deed, so constitute him an agent, as to affect his employer with 
notice of matters within his knowledge.'^ 

The rule that notice to a solicitor is notice to the client 
applies, notwithstanding that the solicitor may be perpetrating 
a fraud upon the client in the transaction.^ The commission 
of a fraud being beyond the scope of the authority of a soli- 
citor, the fraud of a solicitor cannot of course be imputed to 
the client.'' But the fact that a solicitor may be committing a 
fraud in relation to a transaction, in which he is employed, can 
not afford any reason why the client should not be affected 
with constructive knowledge of the facts. Tlie constructive 
knowledge of all the facts must be imputed to him whether 
there is fraud relating to the transaction or not. The solicitor 
is the aUer ego of the client. The client stands in precisely 
the same situation as the solicitor does in the transaction, and 
therefore the knowledge of the solicitor is the knowledge of 
the client. It would be a monstrous injustice that the client 
should have the advantage of what the solicitor knows without 
the disadvantage.^ In determining the eciuities, however, 



• P<r Lonl Chelmdforc], 10 II. L. 114. v. Ilovcndcn. Dm. 11 ; Kcndnll v. Hulls, 

» Wyllie V. Pollen, 32 L. J. Cli. 782. 11 Jur. SiJl; Eastliam v. Wilkinson, 3:i 

» Boursot I'. Savrt-e, L. R. 2 Eq. 131. L. T. 234 ; Spai:,'lit i-. Cowiie. 1 II, &. 

See Rodily i-; Williams, 3 J. tt L. 10. M. 3G5: Tlioinpson v. Cartwright, 3.'; 

« Konncdv ". (xrecn. 3 M. it K. 600 ; Beav. 1S5: 2 I). J. A S. 10; re Uorke's 

Roddy 1'. Williams, 3 J. it L. Ifi; Espin Est.te. 13 Ir. Cli. 271. 

c. Pemberton, 3 1). tt J. 517; Perrv w. ' /*"• Kindersl-v, V.-C. ; Bonrsot r. 

Holl, 2 D. F. k J. 38; Ogilvie v. Jeatl- Savairc L. R. 2 Eq. 134. Set- B.>wlc3 

reaon, 2 Giff. 374. See Marjoiibunka r. Stuirt, 1 Sch. tk L- f. 222 ; Nixon v. 



'J(>2 viivri) fPi^x Tiiiun i^Mn'i!:??. 

between p.irfie>5 win) li.ivo been defrftn<le<l by a coiiiii\'>n phII- 
citor, tlie ciMirt looks to see whethfr tlu-re b:H been aiiytliiiig 
in the transaction calculated to j)ut either ot' the i>:irtie8 upon 
inqnirv. If there be anything? in the case calculated to excito 
suspicion, or to put either of the parties upon iinpiiry, and ho 
abstains from iiniuiry, the sain? kmnvled'^e will br imputed to 
him as he wouM li:ivi' been atfoeted with, liad ho employed an 
independent solicitor.* 

Notice to one partner of a tradin;^ j>artnership is notice to 
the other partners.'' * A partner, however, is not necessarily 
lixcd with notice of the contents of his own books.' 

The rule that notice to one partner is notice to the other 
partners does not apj^ly to the case of corporations or joint- 
t'tock companies. Xotice on the part of a share-holder, or 
non-actinij^ director, does not affect the whole body;*t but 
notice to one of tho persons legally intrusted with the proper 
business to which -the notice relates, or who has authority to 
act for the corporation in the particular matter in regard to 
which the notice is given, will bind the corporation.':}: Notice, 

Hflinilton. 2 Dr. A Wal. 3D1 ; Toulinin 2 D. F. «t J. 3S. See GrecnslaJo v. 

». SU-LTc. S Mcr. 2-'2; lli-wllt r. L- ><)<(.•- Dare, 20 Beav. 2St; Ktiith.im v. WiU 

mor.-. ;» llii. IJ'.'; Attcrhiirv >: Wnllis. kii^.ti, :K} L. T. 2:i». 

8 1). M. it (i. l.'):; i:<irkf'"s KstaU-, 13 ' Atkiii-on t: Maori'tli. 35 L. J. Cli. 

Ir. ell. 271 ; Hunk of United rStatoa v. 021; Liiidl. on Partnr. 2yj. 

Davits, 2 Hill (Ainer.), 4(11. * See Stewart's (.'ase, L. K. 1 Cli. App. 

• Kenneily «'. (Jreen, 3 M. <t K. 009; 674. 
Frail »'. EUirt. 1ft lUav. 3r)7 ; U^rilvie c * PowIp'I t-. Va^ro, 3 C. B. 10; re 

.leatrrcson, 2 •Jiff. 371 ; Attcrburv ti. Carew's Estate. 31 lioav. 4.'5. 
WallLs, 2.'j L. J. C'h. 704; Perry v. lloll, * Worcester Corn Exchange Co., 8D. 



• Wat.son r. Well-*, r; Ct. 4(;'<; Miildlptan &c. Bank i. Dubiiniic, 19 
Iowa, 4G7; ]J:iiifrli<T r. Duphoin, S( (Jill, 314. 

t Ilou.satonic Hunk r. .Muriin, 1 M-t. 2U4 ; Custer r. Tompkins County 
IJank, 9 Ponn. 27; Bank of Pittsbur;,'!! r. WljitfluiKl. lo Watts. 397; 
Union Canal Co. e. Lloyd, 4 W. & H. 8Jt3. 

J Porter r. Hunk of Kutlaiid, lt» Vt. 410 ; Fiiltr.ii I',:ink i. X.-w York 
&c. Canal Co., 4 Vn'mi', 127; Bunks r. Martin, 1 Met. ;ii)S ; Bank of United 
States t. D:ivi.'», 2 Hill, 4'il ; National Bank r. Norton, 1 Hill, 575; 
Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria r, Seton, 1 Pet. 2'J». 



FRAUD UPON TIIIKI) rAi:iii:.-4. 2(i:! 

liowovcr, to tho oflicer of u cor|)<jration, or kiiowlcdiro obtained 
]iy liiin whilst not cnii^aired oflicially in tlic l)usiiic'ss of* the 
coMii>any, is iii(»i>crativc as notice to the latter. " Hut in the 
case of a joint agency (<". (/., the directors of a company), notice 
to cither whilst engaged in the business of his agency is notice 
lo the principal.^ 

A shareholder in a eoinj)any formed uiuler the Companies' 
Act, 1S()2, is nut necessarily fixed Avith a knowledge of the 
contents of the menioraiidimi or articles of association of the 
conii)any.'' r>nt he ninst, within a reasonable time after the 
registration of the memorandum and articles of association, be 
presumed to acquaint himself with their contents. After the 
lapse of a reasonable time he cannot be hciu-d to say that he 
had no knowledge of their contents. What will be a reason- 
able time may in some degree vary in different cases, but must 
always be measured with reference to the thing to be done.' 

The shareholders in a company are not bound to look into 
the management, and will not be held bound to have notice of 
everything which has been done by the directors, who may be 
assumed by the shareholders to have done their duty."* But if 
a transaction be inserted in the books of a company, the share- 
holders will be fixed with notice of it.' 

The registration of an assurance is not of itself notice. A 
prior equitable incumbrance will not, although registered, 

M. (fc G. 183; re Carew's Estate, 31 425; Wilkinson'3 Case, re Madrid 

Bcav. 45; Parsons on Coutrat-ts. p. 05. Bank, ib. 510. 

' Bank of United States v. l)avies, 2 * Stanlmpe's disc, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 

Hill (Amer.), 402. But sec Story on 101, But see Wulford v. Adic, 5 Ha. 

Agency, jj^ 140 a, 140 b. 112, ll'.t. 

''Stewart's Case, L. B. 1 Cli. App. * Spackman's Case, 34 L. J. Cli. 321, 

67-1- 325 ; Stanhope's Case, L. li. 1 Cb. App. 

•Lawrence's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 101. 



"■ Lvne V. Bank of Kentucky, 5 J. J. Marsh. 545 ; Goncrnl Ins. Co. r. 
United States Ins. Co., 10 Mil. 517; United States Ins. Co. r. Siiriver, ^ 
Mil. Ch. 3^1; "Washington Bank r. Lewis. 22 Pick. 21; FiirrcU Foundrj- 
Co. r. Dart, 2C Ct. 370. 



264 rK.Mi) ipoN TiiiKn r\i:Tirs. 

atVect n 8iihso«[m'iit |iunli;i.-rr witlmut noticf \\lii» has (»l)t:uiUMl 
the le^al estate.* * I'.tit if a piiirliasfr scairli the rc^ititer, lie 

• Morocock r. Dickens, Amb. (>1S ; BuBliell v. BuslicU, 1 Scli. A Ld. 98. 



* TIjo rofji^tnition of ii deed is ronstructivc notice to a 8ul)Hcqucnt 
purchas-or. IIiif^lKS r. Edwania, Wheat. 'iHi) ; Lussollo r. Barnett, 1 
IHackf. 130; Pctore r. Goodrich, 3 Ct. 110; Smitlj r. Prince, 14 Ct. 472; 
Totld r. Benedict, 15 Iowa, 501 ; Scliutt r. Lar-?e, G Barb. 373. 

Tlie record of u deed not required by hiw to be recordr-d is not con- 
stnictive notice. Viihird r. lioberts, 1 Strobli, Idi. 3'J3 ; t'Dmmoiiwealth 
r. Rodes, B. Mon, 171; Thoma.s v. Grand Gulf Bank. 9 Snied. 6c Mar. 
201; Lewis r. Baird, 3 McLean, 50; Keed v. Coale, 4 Ind. 2S3; Biiniham 
t. Chandlcy, 15 Te.x. 441; Bossiird r. White, 9 Hicir.s Eq. 483 ; Parrett r. 
Shaubhut, 5 Minn. 303 ; Galpin v. Ablxjtt, ^lich. 17. 

The record of a deed deticient in some statutory requirement is not 
constructive notice of its existence. Carter r. Champion. 8 Ct. 54U; Sum- 
ner c. Rhodes, 14 Ct. 135; Moorec. Auditor, 3 Hen. iV M. 235; Doswell r. 
Buchanan, 3 Lei<^h, 305 ; Dui)liey r. Frcnage, 5 Stew. & Port, 215 ; Jolins 
r. Reardon, 3 MtL Ci). 57; Choban v. Jones, 11 III. 300; Isham p. Benn- 
ington Iron Co., 19 Vt. 230; Schultz r. Moore, 1 McLean, 520; Do Witt 
T. Moultftn, 5 Siiep. 418; Gait v. Dilirdl, 10 Yeru'. 14() ; Harper r. Reno, I 
Freem. Cli. 323. 

Record is constructive notice only to those claiming under the grantor 
by whom the deed was made. Tilton v. Hunter, 11 Shep. 29 ; Crockett r. 
Maguire, 10 Mo. 34; Lily r. Wolf, 10 Ohio, 83; Stuyvesant r. Hall, 3 
Barl). Ch. 158 ; Murray r. Ballon, 1 Johns. Ch. 574 ; Keller r. Nutz, 5 S. ct 
R 252 ; Lightney r. Mooney, 10 Watts, 412; Bates r. Norcross, 14 Pick. 
224; Blake c. Grahanj. Ohio St. R. 580. 

A deed proj)erly left with tlie clerk for record will 1)C considered as 
reconled from the time when it was so left, although it has l)ecn lost and 
never recorded through the negligence of the clerk. Beverly r. Ellis, 1 
Rand. 102; Nichols r. Reynolds, 1 Angell, 30. 

An incorrect entry in the index book will not impart con->tructivo 
notice to u HubMipient purchaser. Breed r. Conley, 14 Iowa, 209; Gwynn 
c. Turner, 18 Iowa, 1. 

Where the .state of the title is such that there is nothing to connect 
the name or interests of u thinl person with the property, it is unreason- 
able to impute notice of the interests of such third jierson to a purchaser, 
for no ordinary prudence can «le!ect it. Lily r. Wolf, I'l Ohio, 83; Jlur- 
ruy r. Ballou, 1 Johns. Ch. 500 ; Sanger r. Craigar. 10 Vt. 555 ; Jenning r. 
Wood, 20 Ohio, 201 ; Filton r. ritn«au. 11 <teo. 5:!0. 

The recording of o deed from the true owmr in his right name, though 



riJAri) ri'oN tiiiud taktiks. 2G5 

Mill l»c iiresunu'd to liavL- notice, unless the presumption can 
l)u rt'ljutted ]>y showing tiiat the search wan made for a i)eriod 
only in which the re/^irftercd deeds are not included.' There 
is a material distinction in tlie efl'ect of ro'^istration between 
the ri'_^ister acts of Ireland aii<l those ot lOn^-laml. Hy the 
Irish Act Anne, c. 2, an absolute priority is expressly given 
to the instrument first registered, so that a subsequent pur- 
chaser, having the legal estate, though he has not notice of an 
equitable estate previously registered, will be bound and com- 
pelled to give eflfect to it.^ 

At law, notwithstanding notice, mere priority of registra- 
tion absolutely determines the right to the property as between 
persons claiming under adverse registered instruments, pur- 
porting to pass the legal estate ;' but in equity, notwithstand- 
ing the stringent language of the Ilegistration Acts, registra- 

' Hodgson I'. Tfonn, 2 Sim. & St. 221, 08; Lntoucbc v. Lord Dunsany. 'i. I")'', 

ftffd. Sec Sng. V. tfe 1'. 701. Conip. 160; Drew f. Lord Xoibury. :J J. (t L. 

Procter V. Cooper, 2 Drew. 1 ; 1 Jur. N. 267 ; Mill r. Hill, '-i 11. L. 828. 
S. 11 9. ' Doe I'. Alsop, 5 B. it Aid. 142. 

» liusbcll V. Dushcll, 1 Sch. it Lcf. 



different from the name by which he acquired it, is constructive notice ol 
such (Iced. Fallon v. Kohoc, :58 Cal. 44. 

AVhen there is a material variance betwcea the record copy and the 
deed, the record is not constructive notice. Fro.st r. Bcekman, 1 Johns. 
Ch. 288 ; Sawyer v. Crane, 10 Vt. 553 ; Baldwin v. [Marshall, 2 Humph. 
116; Jennings v. Wood, 20 Ohio, 2G1 ; Miller r. Bradford, 12 Iowa, 14. 

Fraud can not I)e inferred from mere delay in putting a deed on rec- 
ord, if the grantee has used all the dispatch which the law reipiires. If 
subsequent purchasers without notice sustain an injury within the time 
allowed for recording a deed, the injury is to be ascribed to the law. 
Sherras r. Craig, 7 Cranch, ;>4. 

A party cannot be permitted to take a deed from another for his own 
security, and leave the grantor in pos.<e.-;>ion, and ostensibly the owncr> 
and withhold it from record for an indefinite jjcriod. renewing it periodi- 
cally, and then receive the benefit of it by placing the last renewal upon 
the record. All the renewals are mere continuations of the first deed, and 
the time for recording begins to run from its date. Gill r. Griffith, 2 MdL 
Ch. 270. 

18 



2()() FKAII) iroN TIIIIM) rAKTlES. 

tion is no ]>rotcction against :iii uiiri'^nVttntl assurance of which 
tlie party clalMiin'; uinlcr the rci^isterod iiistniiiR'iit had notice 
prior to the completion of liis purcliase or security,* The ol)- 
■ject of tlio lloi^istration Acts hein^ to ^ive notice, the evils 
against which those statutes intended to i^nard do not exist 
where a man lias notice indepen<lcntly of the registry. If, 
therefore, a man having sucli n(»tice seeks to defeat a j>rior 
charge on the pretence that he had no notice by means of the 
registry, it is a fraud in the sense of a court of equity.'* The 
notice must, however, be clear and distinct.' f The same rules 
in regard to notice apply to cases nnder the Registry Acts as 
to all other cases.* Constructive notice of a j)ri(ir unregistered 
assurance ailecting lands in Middlesex, is as elfectual as actual 
notice.' 



' Le Ncvp V. Le Neve, 3 Atk. 63C; • Wyntt v. r.nrwcll, 19 Vea. 435; 

Eyre c. MD.nvill, 9 11. L. 019; lie Cliadvvick r. Turner, L. U. 1 Ch. Ap. 

Rj.rke's K-tnt-'. 13 Ir. Ch. 271. Sue 310. 

Nixon I', lliiniillon, 2 Dr. <k Wnl. 391 ; * WJiitbrend v. Jordan, 1 Y. 4 C. 303; 

Bcnhani r. Keane, 1 J. <k II. 085; 3 D. Ford r. White. 10 Hcav. 120; Wunnald 

F. & J. 318. V. Miiitland, :{') L. J. Ih. 09. 

* SliL-Idon V. Cox, 2 Eden, 221 ; liush- » Jh. .>^i'c Mx.m r. Hamilton, 2 Dr. 

ell r. l{ii-h.-ll, 1 Sch. & Lef. 102; Eyro A. Wul. 391; Uochard v. Fullon, IJ. iJi 

r. M'Dowell, 9 II. L. 019. 040; Chad- L. 413. 
wick I'. Turner, L. U. 1 Ch. App. 310. 



* Dunham v. Dey, 15 Johns. 5G8; Lupton r. Cormll, 4 Johns. Cb. 202; 
Ohio Life Ins. Co. c. Ledyard, 8 Ala. 800; Ingram r. Philips. 3 Strobh. 
505; Knotts r. Ginfrer, 4 llich. 32; Smitli r. Hall, 28 Vt. 304; Dickenson 
r. Hrackn, 30 111. 279; Doe v. Keed, 4 Scam. 117 ; Warnock r. Wri!,'litm:m, 
1 IJrtvanl, 3:11; Hudson r. Wanior, 2 II. «.\: (.;. 4iri; .Morion r. Uobards, 4 
Dana, 258; Jacknon c. Leek, lU Wend. 33'J. 

t Taylor r. lleriot, 4 Dcs.sau. 227; Wallace v. Crap.-*, 3 Strobh. 200: 
Porter r. Scvey, 43 Me. 519. 

Constructive notice is not sullicicnt. The notice must be such as will, 
with the Hurroundin;.jrircumstancei<, allVct the purchaser with fraud. Dey 
r. Dimhum, 2 Johns. Ch. 1H2; City Council r. I'aLre. Spear's Ch. 159; Spof- 
ford V. Wi-ston, 29 Me. 1 10; Hopping r. Hurnam, 2 Iowa, 39; contra, New- 
man F. Chapman, 2 lland. 93 ; Uogern r. Jone.s, 8 N. II. 204 ; Doo v. llccd, 
4 Scam. 117; Parks r. Willard, 1 Tex. 350. 

A voluntaiy unn-cordcd ccmvey mcc U valid ngainst any sub.scqucnt 
Toluntury couvcyoucc by the grantor. Way c. Lyon, 3 IHackf. 70. 



MISCELLANEOUS FRAUDS. 2G7 

The Kftmo prim-iplcrt Avere held un«ler the ohl law to a[)i)ly 
to the case of a jmrchaser with notice ot undoeketed judg- 
ments,* hut under the new law a jiurchaser even with notice is 
nut hdiiiid l»y a judi^incnt, unless it has hceii duly rc'^istered in 
the Common Pleas ;^ nor will notice ot" a registered judgment 
affect a purchaser, unless it has l)een rc-rcgistered in due tinie.^ 
As between judgment creditors notice is not material.* 

Purchasers of lands in Middlesex are bound by notice of 
unregistered or undoeketed judgments, but as between judg- 
ment creditors notice is not material. A prior judgment cred- 
itor has no equity against a subsequent judgment creditor, who 
has registered with notice.' 

The registration of a judgment is not notice,' unless a 
searcli has been made for judgments, in which case notice will 
be presumed ;' but it seems that a title depending on the fact 
of the vendor having been a purchaser without notice of a 
registered judgment cannot be forced on a purchaser.^ 



SECTION v.— MISCELLANEOUS FRAUDS. 
FRAUD UPON POWERS. 

A class of frauds against which courts of equity will re- 
lieve, are frauds upon powers. 

There is a fraud upon a power if a man, having a power of 
appointment, corruptly exercises the power with a view to his 
own personal benetit and advantage. An appointment under 



' Davis V. Lord Strnthmore, IG Vl-s. D. F. ct J. 318. See Evans v. Williams 

419; Sug. V. it R n-il. 34 L. J. Ch. 485. 

' Sue:. V. & V. b.V3. " Benhnni v. Keane. 3 D. F. «t J. 318. 

• 18 Vict. c. 15, ^ 3. See Bcivan i-. " Churchill v. Grove, 1 Ch. Ca. 35; 
Lord Oxford, 6 D. M. <fe G. 492; Shaw Frecm. Ch. Ca, 170; Lane r. Jackson, 
V. Neale, 6 II. L. 584; Benham v. 20 Beav. 535. 

Keane, 1 J. & H. 685 ; 3 D. F. it J. " Proctor v. Cooper, 2 Drew. 1 ; 1 

318; Evans v. Williams, 34 L. J. Ch. Jur. N. S. 149. 

485. " Freer f. Hesse, 4 D. M. i G. 495. 

* Benham v. Keane, 1 J. <t II. 685 ; 3 



2G6 MISCI.I.LAM'orS rUAlDS. 

a power, ucrt)nlini:lv. \\\\\ he set aside in ciiulty if it appear 
that tlic ]>ersuM in wlmsi' favor tin- power lias liccn exercised 
has agreetl or stii)ulated to ^ive tin- owner of the power some 
benefit or advantage in tlie event of the power bein^ exerei.sed 
in liii> favor,* or if tlie eircunibtances of the case attending the 
execution of the ])Ower are sncli as to sljow conclusively tl)at 
the appointment was iiia<le with a view to Sijnie profit ulti- 
mately accruing; to the owiur of the jtowi-r;' as, for instance, 
where a jiareut, liavini; a power of apj)ointment amoni; child- 
ren, exercises it in favor of a son, a lunatic, in very had health 
and likely to die, in whicli event the parent would, of course, 
become entitled to tlie fund, as the j)ersonal rej»resentative of 
the son.' So also, and for the same reason, where a parent 
havinfT power to raise ])ortions for children, appointed a portion 
to a child lonj,' before it was required, and the child died 
shortly afterward, the appointment was held invalid.* So 
also an appointment ]»y a jiarent in favor of a dauirhter, with a 
Wew to obtaining the benefit of the fund so appointed, through 
the exercise of undue parental intlucnce over her, would bo 
held invalid.' 

There is a very material distinction between powers to ap- 
jxjiiit portions to be raised for children, and i»owers to appoint 
to children a fund actually set apart or provided. Under a 
power of the former class, an appointment whereb}- a portion 
is raised for a child before it is 'wanted, carries with itself the 
evidence of fraud, even though the terms of the power author- 
ize the parent to raise the portion whenever he thinks pro})er.' 

' I, tine r. \'a'j:t', Aiiil)! i:3.T ; I'atnier * Wdltwloy v. Mornington, 2 K. «t J. 

r. W lif.l<T, 2 Ua. .t lU: 'M ; Fiinn.r c. 113. 

Martin, 2 Sim. .Ml; Aniolii r. Hani- * Lord Ilincliinhrooko v. Seymour, 1 

wick, 7 Sim. .'JKI ; .lack-mi '•. .Iaiki»on, 7 Bro. C C. iiVT) ; WcHesley v. Moruing- 

CI. A Fin. y77 ; Uowl. y v. Kowl. y. K^iy. ton. 2 K. A .1 1 la. 

242; IWd i: lU-'ul, L'.V Itiav. nk Si-o ' \U> Mar^^l.ii'M Tni'<t,*, 4 I>rew. f.oi. 

AjikJinrn v. IJarWr, 17 H<'av. 11. ' Lurd Uimliiiil)ro<>kL> v. Svyniour, 1 

• llumi.hrfy v. Oiiv.r. 2h L. .!. Cli. Dro. C. C. ili'.V 
406. 



MISCELLANKOrS rUAIDS. 209 

Under a power of the latter clasw, however, sharef? may he ap- 
pointed to a cliild so as to vest loiij^ hefore tliey are requirctJ. 
A hmn jide appuintincnt to a child of very tender a^^e, and in 
^ood licaltli, of an estate or fund wliicli has heen previously set 
apart or jtrovidnl for the hcncfit (»f children, is in itself no 
sign of frajid. It is of no consequence tliat tlie child nuiy die 
shortly afterward, if it was in good health at the time th(! 
power was exercised. If the ])ower l)e in other respects well 
executed, it is immaterial that it may have in fact been exer- 
cised with the object of providing that in any event tlic ])C'r- 
sons entitled in remainder on failure of children shall \M>i tak(' 
the estate or fund.* 

If a person be the only child who has been kind to a parent 
ill distress, there is no fraud if the parent exercises a power of 
appointment in his favor.' ISTor is tliere fraud if a parent exer- 
cises a power of appointment in ftivor of two of his sons, to 
enable them to embark in business, and then, at their request, 
becomes a partner Mith them in the business, there being no 
evidence to prove any bargain between them in tlie event of 
his exercising the power in a particular way.^ An appoint- 
ment, however, to one of several objects of a power in pay- 
ment of a debt due to him from the appointor is bad.* 

Although an appointment by a parent in favor of a child, 
over whom he exercises undue influence, cannot be supported,^ 
it is otherwise if the exercise of undue influence be disproved." 
A child to whom property has been appointed by a jiarent 
may, in such a case, give the parent a beueflt or advantage 
in the property so appointed.' 

■ Butcher v. Butclier, 14 Sim. 444 ; ' lie Marstlen's Trust?, 4 Drew. fiOl. 

Fearon v. Dfsbrisay. 14 Bcav. 635 ; See Toplmm v. Duko of l^ortland, 1 1». 

13cere v. Iloffmeislor, 23 Bcav. 101. J. A- S. 517. 

" Wheeler i'. rahner, '2 Ba. tfc }io. 31. * See siipra, p. 181. 

'Cockcroft V. SutclitTe, 2 Jur. X. S. ' Davis v. I'phill. 1 Sw. 136; Warde 

823. V. Dickson, 5 Jur. N. S. 699. 

* Reid V. Reid, ITt Beav. 478. See 
Bcddocs r. Tuirh, 26 Bcav. 411. 



•J 70 MISCLLLASEOrs rHAlDS. 

In an arninircini-nt ^ettlin,LC the infcri'sts of all the hranclics 
of a family, children may contract with each otlu-r to ^'ivo 
to a parent, who h:i<l i><'\vir to distrihutc i)roperty amonj^ 
them, some a(lvantau:e whieh the ])arent, \vith..iit tlu-ir contract 
with each other, couhl not liave.* 

In order, liowever, to constitute a trand upon a power, it is 

not necessary that the object of the exercise of the power 

should be the pei*sonal bcnetit or advantage of the donee of 

the power. If the design of the donee in exercising the 

power is to confer a benctit, not ui)on himself actually, but 

upon some other person not being an object of the i)ower, 

that motive just as much interferes witii and defeats the 

puqiosc for which the i)Ower was created as if it had been 

for the personal benefit of the donee himself. If the donee 

of a power of appointment exercises the ])ower in favor of 

one of several objects of the power, with a view to the benelit 

of a stranger, the appointment is fraudulent and void, even 

although the motive of the donee is not morally wrong.^ A 

man who takes property absolutely under an appointment, 

may do with the property so appointed as he pleases, and may 

settle it on persons who are not objects of the power;' but 

there is a fraud \\\u>u a power if an appointment be nmde upon 

a bargain for the benefit of persons who are not objects of the 

power.* The appointment, accordingly, of a ]iortion of a fund 

to a daughter, for the ]»urpose of l>aying her husband's debts, 

was held void." So also, where a married wonuin, having a 

power to appoint a fund of wliich she received the income for 

her life, appointed the whole fund at her death absolutely in 

favor of her daughter, in order that thereout the daughter 

should benefit the father, the apix.intnient was held invalid.*^ 

•DbvIhi-. rphill. 1 Sw. i:<f.. Miirl.y •'. l5irloy. ih.; VryoT v. 

' lie MnrH.lfirK Tru-t». I I»r.'w. f.dl. rrv<.r. 'i I>. .1. .1 S. •Ju.'i. 

» l{<.utl«-(l(,'«' >•. l».irrill. 'I Vi'M. .Ir. a&7. Iliiiikin- »•. l«urnf*, 12 W. U. Hrt8. 

Se« Uirlov v. UJrl.-v. 25 lionv. 2vy. * AV .MurH.lin^ ^ru•.l^ J Drew. fiOl. 



MISCEI.LANKOUS I'KAUDB. 271 

Tlic priiiciplo has been licld even to apply to a case wlicre an 
arran^L-HR'nt was entered into Ijetween tlie orip;in;il dunor and 
creator of the jiowcr iind any of tlie ohjeets of the jxiwer, to 
henetit perfions olhtT than those within tlie powur.' 'J'lie 
principle that the donee of a ]>ower may not aj)point to a jut- 
son who is not an object of the power applies even althon^h 
the ai)pointce is not privy to tlie intentions of the donee of 
the power. The desi^ni to defeat the i)urpose for which the 
power was created will stand just the same whether the 
appointee was aware of it or not.^ AVhere, accordingly, a 
married woman, having a power to appoint a fund of which she 
received the income for lier life among her children, appointed 
the whole fund at her death in favor of lier daughter, in order 
that thereout the daughter should benefit her father, relying 
on the influence which the father would have over her to carry 
out the secret arrangement, the ap])ointment was held invalid, 
although the daughter was not informed of the mother's inten- 
tion until after her mother's death." 

Although children may contract with each other to give 
to a parent, who has power to distribute property among them, 
some advantage which the parent, without their contract with 
each other, would not have,* a transaction of the sort cannot 
be upheld if, taken as a whole, it appears not to be a hona fide 
family arrangement, but to have been entered into in fraud of 
the power, for the purpose of giving a benefit to a person who 
was by the donor excluded from being an appointee or from 
deriving any advantage from the exercise of the power.' 

There is a fraud upon a power, not only where it is exer- 
cised in favor of persons who are not the proper objects of the 
power, but also where it is exercised for purposes foreign to those 



> Leo f. Fornie. 1 B»\iv. 483. * Davis v. I'lhill, 1 Sw. 13G. 

* Rf Mnrsdcn's Trusts, 4 Drew. 001. • Agassiz v. bquire, lb Beav. 431. 

• Ih. feoe Ranking i'. Barnes, 12 W. 
R. 5C8. 



'2T2 miscellam;«»i s ruAi ds. 

for wliifli the powtr was created.' The donee of the power sliall, 
at the time of the exercise of the i)owcr. and for any ]>urj)ose for 
which it is used, act witli p)od faitli and sincerity, and with an 
entire and sin^de virw to the real |)nri)ose and ohject of the 
]>ower, and not for the i>uri)ose of accomi)lishin^ or carryin'jf into 
eliect anv ohject which is hi-yoiid tlic jMirpose and intent of 
the power.' It is MccordiiiLrly, a fraud npon a power, if a man 
havin<; a power to appi»int anionic two sisters ajipoints tlie 
whole to one of thcin. it bcin:,' understood that she was only 
to receive one moiety of the fund to her own use, and was to 
allow the other to accuniulatc, sulijcct to some future arrange- 
ment.^ In determining whether there is a fraud upon a power, 
the court looks to the ])ur]>osc with which the i^nver was exer- 
cised.* In Scroggs i\ Scroggs,* the consent of a trustee was 
necessary to the exercise of a ]»ow».'r, and the donee of the 
]>.)\vcr procured the trustee's consent hy a false rejtresentation, 
to wliicli the a})pointee does not appear to have been in any 
wav a party ; yet the court set aside the api)ointnient.* 

If there be a fraudulent arrangement between the donee of 
a power and the api)ointee, tlie bad jiurpn.-i- will, in general, 
vitiate the a])itointment ui toto, and not merely the i>art to 
wliich the fraud extends.' A]»pointments to children, accord- 
inglv, in ]»art fraudulent, have almost always been avoided 
altogether.* In cases, however, Avhere the evidence enables 
tlie court to distinguish what is attributable to an authorized 
from what is attributable to an unantliorizcd ]'nrposi', the bad 
purpose will not ailect the whole ajtpointmcnt.'-' 80 when 
there is a sum of nutney to be ai>pointed among childivn, 

• Toplinm r. Duke of rorllaiul, 1 I). ' I)nubi'riy t'. rocklmrn. 1 Mit. f.i'rt. 
J <t s :,',(). * //'. KaniiiT f. Martin, 2 Sim. Ml ; 

' l>iik<' of Portland r Ti'jilmin, 11 IL Arnold ,-. Iliirdwicki-, 7 Sim. \WA. Sco 
L. r>4, jtr Lord \Vcnlljury. Uowlry '•. Uowli-y. Kny. 2.'iit. 

* iL'A'L ' • Tojilium f. l)"iikc of Portland, 1 D. 
*T<.|<linm f. Duke of Portland. 1 I». .1 it- S. f»T2 . ;.<r 'I'lirnfr, L. .1. ."^po 

J. <t S. fiTK. (urvrr v. KitlianlH, 27 Hcnv. 488; 

* Ainl.i. 272. Kankini; v. narni's, 12 W. i{. r>rt5. 

• J'er Turn..-r. L. .1.. 1 I>. J. «t S. :.7o. 



illSt'ELl.AMEUUfc; I'liALlJS. liT.'J 

although an appointment to one cliild may be void on account 
of a cornipt iigrceinent, an ajiprjintrnont to another cliild, 
although by a contemporaneous deed, if it can be severed 
from the previous aj)pointment so as not to form part of the 
.'•aiMC transaction, will be valid. ^ 

Although in the case of ai)pointment8 to children, a fraud- 
ulent arraniionicnt between the donee of the power and the 
appointee will, in general, vitiate the wliolo appointment, a 
ditferent doctrine has been maintained in the case of appoint- 
ments by way of jointure. The appointment will, in sucli 
cases, be only vitiated in the extent to which it is all'ected by 
the fraud.^ 

It was formerly held that illusory appointments under a 
power were void in equity, e. </., api^ointments of a nominal 
instead of a substantial share to one of the members of a class 
■where power was given to appoint among them all. An 
appointment of this kind was always valid at law, and it would 
perhaps be difficult to reconcile with principle its avoidance in 
equity. The doctrine has been abolished by statute.^ 

FRAUD IN THE PREVENTION BY UNDUE [MEANS OF ACTS TO 
BE DONE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIRD PARTIES. 
There is fraud against which a court of equity will relieve 
if a man be prevented by undue means from doing an act for 
the benefit of third parties. If a man be prevented bv duress 
undue influence, or other imdue means, from executing an 
instrnment, the court will treat it as if it had been executed.^ 
When, for instance, a tenant in tail, meaning to sutler a 
recovery, was prevented on his deathbed frt.m suiTering it, by 
the fraud of the person whose wife was entitled in remainder, 

' Rowley f. Rowley, Kay, 242. See * 11 Geo. IV, <t 1 W'm. IV, c. 46. 

Harrison v. Randall, H Ila. Wt. Butcher v. Butcher, 9 Ves. 382. 

' Lane v. Taiie, Anib. -in ; Alevn >\ * Middleton t;. Middleton, 1 J. it W. 

15elcher, 1 Eden, 1:^8. Sui;. Pow. GIO. 96. 
See Rowley t-. Rowley, Kay, 25y. 



274 iiiscEi.i-ANKors fijauds. 

it was held that the estate oii^'ht to he luld :is if the recovery 
bad been perlccted, thou^di even in favor of a volunteer, and 
n'minst one nut a partv to the fraud.* JSo also when a pei-son 
interested in the noii-exeeution of a jM.wer has the deed 
creating' the power in his custody, and the duuee of the power, 
wtshin"- to execute it, sends for tlio deed, which the party 
refuses to deliver, and therenpon the donee dues an act with 
an intent to execute the power, equity will uphuld the 
execution, althuugh defective by reason of the fraud in the 
person who was to have the benefit of the ori^'inal settlement.^ 
But the mere refusd ur ne;j:lect of an attorney with whuui a 
deed containing a power has been deposited, to deliver it up 
to the donee of the power, in the absence of fraud, is no 
ground for relief against informality.' Ivpiity would extend 
the relief to a case where a wife, having a i>ower vi' revocation 
over an e.^-tate vested in her Imsband, is desirous to exercise it; 
but the husband hinders anybody from coming to her, or 
prevents the execution, or obstructs the engrossing of the 
deed of revocation.'' 

The ]>rinciplc applies to cases where a man has been 
induced by false ])romises to abstain iVum doing an act fur 
the benefit of third parties. If, for example, a testator bo 
induced to omit the insertion in his will of a fonnal provision 
for any intended object of his bounty, ui)on the faith of a.'^sur- 
ances givi'ii bv his heir ur other persun, wliu wuuKl tiike hir, 
])ropirtv in the event id' his umitting to insert the particular 
bequest in his will, that his, the testator's, wishes shall bo 
executed as jMiiutually and fully as if the bequest were 
formally made, this i)romise and undertaking will raise a trust, 

' LuUrcll I'. fUmiii^, <it. 1 1 Vos. 038 ; * Hnckcll i-. nionkhorn. ft Iln. 131. 

14 ViH. 2y<»; 1 J. «t NV. Vi). * l'i:,','<itt v. Vvuru-r, Coin 'J.'iK ; IVcc. 

» Si'f .*J t'h. Ci» 07, h:i. si. f''*. ''•'<. 1"*^. <"'•• •'" ' ; ^ "'"' '• •■'''■•'■'I'T. 1 r. Wms. 

122; Word r. IWhiIIi, clt. rH'li. Cn. O'.t. Il.'.l ; So^cnivi" i>. Kirwaii, H.-ritl. ir.7; 

S«'fV<»rt.:!K3; Uuokoll r. HIcnklKjrn, a lliilklcy r. Willfonl. '1 l\. it I'iii. loj; 

Hii. i:Jl ; \V<»t i: Hay, Kny, as.'i. Nunni-y v. Williams, 'J2 lkav.45i 



Mlfil'KI-I.ANnors FRAI'DS. 273 

wliicli, tlioiigli not avaiIal)lo at law, will lie enforced in equity 
on the ground offraud.^* 80, also, if a father devises an 
estate to one son, wlio engages, if the estate is devised to him, 
to give a certain amount of money to another son, the ])romise 
will be enforced in equity.'^ An engagement of the kind 
alluded to may l)e entered into not oidy hy words, but by 
silent assent to such a proposed undertaking, which will equally 
raise a trust.' 

FRAUDULENT SUPPRESSION OR PESTRUCTION OF DEEDS 

AKD OTHER INSTRUMENTS IN VIOLATION OF OR 

INJURY TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. 

If an heir shcmld suppress deeds, wills, etc., in order to 
prevent another party, as grantee or devisee, from obtaining 
the estate vested in him thereby, courts of equity, upon due 
proof by other evidence, would grant relief, and perpetuate 
the possession and enjoyment of the estate in such grantee or 
devisee.* If the contents of a suppressed or destroj^ed instroi- 
ment are proved, the party will receive the same benelit as if 
the instrument were produced.' 

AVhere there has been a spoliation or suppression of instru- 
ments, wliicli might have thrown light upon a suit, everything 
will be presumed against the party by whose agent such 

» Dutton V. Pool, 1 Vent. 318 ; Thynn ' Slickland v. Alilrid^e, 9 Ves. 519. 

v. Tliyiin, 1 Verii. '290 ; Scllack v. Har- ' Uyriie v. (iodfrcj-, 4 Ves. 10; Paine 

ris. r> Vin. Ab. r>21 ; Dcvunisli )•. liaiiies, v. Hall, IS Vos. 47"!. 

I'rcc. Ch. 3; Olilham v. Liti htield, 2 * Hunt v. Matthews. 1 Vera. 40S ; 

Vern. 50(5; 2 Freem. Ch. 284; Cham- 'Wnnioiir t'. Beri.sford, ib. 452, cit. 2 I', 

berlaine r. Clianiberlaino, 2 Freem. Ch. Wm. 74S, 749; Dal.ston v. Coatsworth, 

34; Ucech v. Kennisnte, Amb. 67; Bar- 1 l\ Wnis. 731 ; Finch i-. Newnham. 2 

row 7'. Grecnoiip:!!, 3 Ves 153 ; Mestaer Vern. 211") ; Barnesley '•. Powell, 1 Ve.<. 

V. (;ilU'si)ie, 11 Ves. t'.3S; Chamberlaine 289; Tiu-ker c rhipp?!, 3 Atk. 300. bee 

V. Agar, 2 V. ik B. 202; I'oiliiiore c. Gun- Hornby v. .Mateha'n, 10 Sim. 325. 

ning, 7 Sim. GGU; Uussell )'. Jackson, 10 'Saltern i'. Melhuish, Amb. 247; 

Ha. 213. Cowpcr v. Cowper, 2 P. Wms. 719. 



* In no case has a party been successful when a reasonable doubt in 
resrard to the promise could be entertained. Gaither r. Gaithcr, 3 ild. Cb, 
158; Richardson r. Adam>. 10 Yem. 273. 



'J7G Miscr.i.i.AM'.ors iKAins. 

ppolifttion and sui>i>ri'ssioii liavi> hocii |tr:icticc(l, and cvcrv 
]>rcsuin|>tiun will lie iiiatlc in I'avor ot' the pnutu facie rights 
(»f the either party.' 

Prima facie the cnneellation of a deed is evidence of its 
discharge, but in a court of ecjuity it is open to the i>arty 
claiming under the deed to Au>\\ that it was cancelled hy 
fraud, mistake, or accident. AVhere the deed has always been 
in the hands of the party heneticially interested under it, 
should it appear to have been cancelled, the proof that this 
was done by fraud would re.-t witli that ]iarty ; l)Ut wlu-re the 
deed Las constantly reniaine<l in the power of the maker 
thereof, or has been deposited by him with a i)erson of Ids 
own selection, circumstances may throw upon the nuiker of the 
deed the onus of showing not only that such deed is cancelled, 
but that the obligation it imposed has been duly discharged 
and satisfied.' 

FRAUD IN SETTING UP AN INSTKU-MKNT OI'.TAIXED FOIi 
ONE PURPOSE FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE. 

Where a man obtains an instrument or conveyance from 
another, in order to answer one jjarticular purjw.se, but after- 
wards makes use (tf it for another, a court of equity will 
relieve under the head of fraud. It is immaterial that the 
conveyance may be ])erfected by act of record.^ AVhere, 
accordingly, a father, mIio was a tenant f<'r life of real estate, 
fearing that the husliand of his daughti-r, who was tenant in 
tail of the i>roj»erty, would waste the i»roperty, imlueed him 
and the daughter to join in a recovery, with a view to jtroteet- 
ing the j)roperty from his creditors, and the pro])erty wjks 
conveyed to the fatlu-r for a mere nominal sum, the recovery 

• r.owlcH r. Slunrt. 1 Srli. .t I.<f. 222; » Sluyfki'n v. Hunter, 1 M.r. -45. 

Evt/iti V. Kvton, 1 Ilro. 1'. ('. l.'>:{; » Yoiitig i. IVialu-y, 2 .\tk. '.iiM^, 

ifainiMl'n r. 'ilii(ii|icl<>n. ih. 2ri2 ; Sqiul- 
in«j f. TwUty, btl. (.a. Cb. 70. 



MLSC'KLLANKOLS rKAUDH. 277 

■vras set aside :it tlio suit uf tlio assignees in insolvency of Lis 
son-in-law.' 

FRAUD IN ASSIGX^IENTS, BY ASSIGNEES, ETC. 

An assignment by the assignee of a lease or term is not a 
fraudulent assignment. If a man ' assign noininally only, 
retaining the beneficial enjoyment, it is fraudulent, because 
while lie assumes to one thing, he really does another. lie 
retains the benefit, and, by a false act, endeavors to get rid (4' 
the burthen. Jhit if he assigns really, getting rid of the 
burthen, and giving uj) really the benefit also (if any) to his 
assignee, it is not a fraudulent act. His motive for parting 
with it, or the other's motive for receiving it, are not enough 
to make it fraudulent,, if the act done be a real act, intended 
really to operate as it appears to do. The assignment even to 
a beggar is not fraudulent, although made in order to avoid 
payment of a sum of money chargeable on the property under 
the original agreement. The motive which induces the as- 
signee to assign over has no bearing upon the question 
whether the assignment be fraudulent or not, provided the 
assignment is real and intended to o])erate, as it appears to 
operate.' 

"Where the assignee of a lease, subject to a mortgage, in- 
duced the lessor, a friend and client, to take advantage of a 
forfeiture, which was committed by the lessee exj)ressly for 
that purpose, and, after the forfeiture was complete, induced 
the lessor to grant him a new lease of the property on the 
same terms, the court declared that the new lease was subject 
to the mortgage.' 

' Young V. Pcacliy, 2 Atk. 25G. See ' Taylor v. Slium, 1 B. ik P. 21 ; Ons- 

Wilkinson v. Ihaytield. 2 Vcrn. 307; low r. Corrie, 2 Madd. 340; Fagg r. 

Goodricke v. Brown, 2 Frccni. 18i», 1 Dobie, 3 Y. tfc C. lOi. 

Ch. Cft. 49 ; Evans v. Bicknell, 6 Yes. * Hughes v. Howard, 25 Beav. 575. 
191 ; Pickett v. Loggou, 14 Yes. 234. 



*J78 MISCI'.l.LANKOrS rUAl I)S. 

FK.M I) UV AM) I IM)N COMPANIES. 
Fraud wliifli cuiisists in iiii.-«ri'i>rostMit:iti(.ii t»r conpcalment 
on the ])art of companies has been already ctdisithivd ; but 
there arc otlier nets on the part of companies wliieh are 
fraudulent in tlie contemplation of a court of ecjuity. 

The creditor of a company \vli<^ has recovered judgment 
against the company may, unless in the case of comi)anies 
within the Comi)anies' Act, 1S<;2,* proceed to execution at 
bis pleasure a<;ainst any particular shareholder;* but if a com- 
pany enter into'an aijreement with one of its creditors that he 
shall recover judgment against the company, and take out 
execution against a particular shareholder, there is fraud, 
against which relief may be had in ecpiity.' The rule that a 
partner cannot buy in a debt, and enforce it against Ins copart- 
ners applies equally as between shareholders in joint stock 
companies.* 

A shareholder in a company acting hand JiJe may sell his 
shares to another person, or give him money to take the shares, 
if tbe transaction be open and not merely coh»rable; but if a 
shareholder gets rid of liis shares by assigning them to a 
pauper, or to a person over whom he has entire control, in 
order to avoid ])aying his share ot the debts of the company, 
and to throw them upon the other shareholders, the transaction 
is fraudulent.' 

■\Vhere shares in a joint stock company have been issued 
fraudulently, a hond fide purchaser of these ^iian-s in the 
market, betore any ])ill has been tiled to impeach the transac- 
tion, is entitled, on a winding-up of the company, notwith- 
standing the frau<l, and iiotwithstamling that he lu.ught the 
shares at a very great discount, to prove on e<|u:il terms with 

' 2.'. A 20 Viet. c. H'.t. ;■? RS. 2ol. Kiiilwny Co.. 1 K. * .1. .199 ; Bnrgntc v. 

» r;rf..rrf. Nixon, v:! I'.iuv. .'iHO ; IVck Sli<.rlrul;r»'. T) H. I- -''7- 

r T)i'ftn .'I Jur N S II. * \VtMxlhnmn r. AnKloAufltrnlian, Ac. 

•Tnvior r. liu'irh.-H. 2 .». .t L. 2» ; Co., 2 D. .1. A S. ItVJ. 

FornUi'ouiili v. l^n.l.r, i:. L..I. il,. -l.-.H. • Sinicr'H Cn.-*.., :t:. Hcnv. 393. Sco 

4 Utt. Ca. 373; Horn v. Kilkenny, Ac. Ez-parU Oarnlin, 10 \\ . 11. Altl. 



MISCELLANEOUS FRAUDS. 279 

the other pharolioldcrs of the company wlio l)oii;;lit tljcir 
elmres at par; but this privilege does not extend to any i)er- 
son who purcliased his shares after tlic fih'ng of tlie bill, uidesH 
hirf vendor was a Inrnd fide licldiT df the shares Ijefore bill 
iilcMi, and the ^;<?^i' of proof that such was the case id upon 
liini.^ 

FRAUD UPON THE MORTMAIN LAWS. 
The court will relievo against a fraud on the Mortmain 
laws. The statute 9 Geo. II, cannot be evaded by a secret 
trust, and the heir may compel the devisee to disclose any 
promise which he may have made to the testator to devote 
the land to charity ; * and such promise, if denied by the 
devisee, may be proved by evidence aliunde? The trust, by 
whatever means established, invalidates the devise. This 
doctrine evidently assumes that the trust, if legal, would have 
been binding on the conscience of, and might have been en- 
forced against, the devisee; and this ground failing, the rule 
does not apply : as where a testator, after devising lands by a 
will duly attested, declares a trust in favor of a charity by an 
unattested paper or by parol, the statute law, which atFords to 
the devisee a valid defence against any claim on the part of 
the charity, of course equally defends him against the claim of 
the heir, founded on the charitable trust.'' The case would 
be different, however, if the devisee had prevailed on the 
testator to give him the estate absolutely, under an assurance 
that the unattested paper was a sufficient declaration of trust 
for the charity,^ or under a promise that if the estate were 
devised to him, he would perform the trust.*' 

' Barnard v. Bncrshaw. 1 IT. <fe M. 69. * Adlinijton r Cann, 3 Atk. 141 ; cit. 

' Boson V. iStatham. 1 E.l. SOS ; Muc- 9 Vi-s. .M'.!; Wall-jravc v. Tcbbs. 2 K. 

kleston V. Brown, G Vos. h'l ; Stickland <t J. 313 ; Lomax v. lliple}-, 3 Sm. ib G. 

v. AUlrul::o, 9 Ves. 516 ; Baine r. UuU, 48. 

18 Ves. 47"). ' See Adlincrton r. Cann. 3 Atk. 152. 

' Edwards r. Bike, 1 Ed. 207, 1 Cox, " lUissell r. Jackson, M Ha. 204. See 

17. Jaruian on Wills, voL 1, p. 213. 



280 MISCELLANEOUS FHAIDS. 

ruAiDs (»N Tin: law of roin'Krrrui:. 

A court of c<iuity ^vill relieve n<^aiii8t Iruiids uu tliu law ol" 
forfeiture. 

The crown coniini^ in on the fot^t of an attainder has all 
the ri:;hts of the i>arty forfeiting;, and ha.s the Kinie ecpiity to 
be relieved ai,'ainst c<^nveyancc8 on the •,aound of fraud as he 
would have. The crown, on a forfeiture, takes the estate, sub- 
ject to all charrccs and incumbrances which would have bound 
the i»arty forfeitini;, and is bound, too, thereby, where there is 
no fraud, in respect of the crown. U, however, the attainted 
party has voluntarily and dcsicjnedly made a grant or convey- 
ance to cncuinber his estate, with a view to high treason, the 
cro>vn, and those taking from it, would have a right to dispute 
that demand, and be delivered therefrom, as fraudulent.- 

If a man gives an estate to A and his heirs, but in case he 
commits high treason, over to another, this is a vt»id limitation, 
because it is an invasion of the laws of forfeiture.^ So also a 
man may substitute another legatee or executor, if the first 
should die during the life of the testator, but he cannot extend 
it beyond the term of his own life.^ 

FRAUD UPON THE BANKRUPT LAWS. 

The ]>rinciple of the nankruj)t laws being the equal dis- 
tribution of the proi)erty and etlects of a bankrupt among his 
creditors,* acts which are done with the t>bject of preventing 
an equal distribution of the property and effects of a bankruj)t 
among his creditors are fraudulent within the meaning of those 
laws.' The assignment, accordingly, by a man of the whole of 
his estate and elfects, or of the whole with a cobrable excej)- 



• Duko of licdford v. C(»ko, 2 Vch. « Worsloy t». Pe Mnttog, 1 Hurr. -ITfi. 

115 Wooilliousc I'. .Murrriy, L. U. 2 U. liL 

'Carte V. Carlo, a Alk. 18U; Auib. 037. 
3-1 • Young V. Wuuil, 8 Exch. 231. 

'•76. 



MTSCELLAXrorS FRAl'DS. 281 

tion of part only, under siicli circumstances as necessarily to 
tlofeat or delay lils creditors, is a fraud within the meaning of 
those laws, although there be no actual moral fraud.* An ex- 
ception, iiowever, has been grafted on the general principle. 
Tlie assignment by a trader of liis proj)erty and eftects fur a 
present advance of imuiey is not necessarily a fraud on the 
J'aidvrupt laws, though the whole of his stock, present and 
future, is included in the conveyance. If the conveyance be 
made hond fide for the purpose of enabling him to carry on 
his business, it cannot be called a fraudulent act as tending to 
defeat or delay creditors,* although the property or effects have 
been sold or pledged for a sum less than their value. The 
assigmnent by a trader of all his property and effects for a 
present advance of part of their value is not necessarily a fraud 
on creditors under the Bankrupt laws. The advance may be 
the means of enabling him to go on with his trade, and so the 
transaction may be beneficial for the creditors. A lona fide 
sale of goods in a season of pressure by a trader for whatever 
ready money can be obtained is valid, though the price be 
small. The proportion which the sum raised bears to the value 
of the property sold or j)ledged, is a circumstance to be con- 
sidered in determining Mdiether the transaction is hona fide or 
not, but is not conclusive that it is fraudulent.^ It is for the 
court or the jury to say whether, under all the circumstances 
of the case, the effect of the assignment is to delay or defeat 
creditors * If there was in the minds of the parties the sin- 
ister object of defeating or delaying creditors, the advance of 

• Ilooper V. Smith, 1 W. Bl. 44 1 , Sie- Bell v. Simpson, 2 11. &. N. 410. See Ex- 

bcrt r. SpooiuT, 1 M. ifc W. 715 ; Stani,nT jiaric Wenslev, 1 i>. J. «t S. 281 ; Mercer 

V. Wilkin:), lit Be;iv. r.2('>; Smitli ;■. C:ui- v. IVler.son, L. II. .3 E.xch. 104. 
nan, 2 K. it H. :f.-> ; Ki-parte IManil. f. ]). ' Lee v. Hart, 11 Kxch. SSO; Bittle- 

M. it G. 757 : Graham v. Chnpniaii, 12 0. stone v. Cooke, G E. it B. 307, 300 ; Pen- 

B 85; Leake I'. Young:, 5 E. it B. 965; nell v. R.')'noKls, 11 C B. X. S. 7m9; 

Smltli f. Timms, 1 H. ifeC. 85fi; Youn^ Siirubsoie i-. Sussams, 16 C. B. N. S. 

c. Fletcher. 3 IL & C. 742; Woodhou.se 453. 
V. Murray. L. U. 2 tj. B. 637. * ///. Wooilhonse a Murray, L. B*2. 

' Bittlestone v. Cooke. 6 E. <fe B. 307 ; Q. Ij. 637. 

19 



282 MiscKi.T.ANT.ors FiJArn.-^. 

cvcMi a sul>st:mtial p:irt ttftlio value of tlio property at the tiino 
ot' till' ;i>sii;MiiU'nt wiMiliI not iiKiko tiir transaction v;ili«l. l>ut 
the court will lutt lu»Ul that a dci-d o(»nvcyinj; i)ropL'rty iu con- 
si Jurat it>n of a present advance which bears a huhstantial pro- 
portion to the value of the ])roperty, is invalid, unless it is bat- 
isfied that there exists an intention to defeat t>r delay, and con- 
6e<pK'ntly t<» defraud credit(»rs; and that oKjcct must be the 
object not only of the bankrupt but also of the party who ie 
dealiuij: with him. A ])ersi.)n dealinj; bond Jide with the bank- 
ru}»t wi»uld be safe. Unless he knows, or, from the very nature 
of the transaction, nnist be taken necessarily to have known, 
that tlic object was to defeat or delay creditors, the deed can- 
not be impeached.^ A conveyance by a trader of all his jiroj)- 
crty was held fraudulent upon creditors within the meaning of 
the bankruptcy laws, even though made in consideration of 
marriage, it being shown that the wite was cognisant of the 
embarrassed comlition of tlie Inisl Kind's atl'airs.* 

There are authorities to show that when a conveyance is 
made by a trader of all his property and elfects, and the con- 
veyance is nuule in part for a bygone or pre-existing debt, the 
transaction is a fraud upon creditors within the meaning of the 
Bankrupt laws, upnn the princii)le that in such v\\>i..^ the trader 
does not get an e<piivalent.* Ihit according to other author- 
ities, the fact that the consideration for which the conveyance 
may be made is in part an ohl or j^re-existing debt, is \\o{ j^er 
se a fraud upon creditors within the meaning of those laws, 
though the effect may be to stop the bu>iness of the trader.* 
The assignment by a man of all his ])roperfy with a view to 
release and relieve the proi)erty from the charges already laid 

' PonnfU I'. RfvnoItlH. 1 1 ('. B. N. S. Rinitli v. Cnnnnn, 2 K. A 15. .IS; Tjioon v. 

722; KriiHor v. Li'-vy. rt II. A N. KV Sco Liiri-n. '.VI \,. .1. tli. ;ilti; (Iri.nUil liiiiik- 

lU- ColetncTc, L. H." 1 ( li. App. 12M. in:,' Co. v. ('•.Icinan. :» (iiir. 11; tJood- 

* Coloml/mc v. IVnlmll. 1 Siii. tt G. rU-kc v. Taylor. 2 D. J. A- S. 1 :{.'). 

22«. * Hc'H •'• iSimii.wn, 2 II. »t N. 410. 

'limliam v. Chapman, 12 C. I). b5; 



MI8CELLANEOU8 FRAUDS. 283 

on it, and not tn i>:iy a paHt del)t only, is valid.' »So also an 
assii^nmcnt l»y a man nj" the Mlude <ii' liis property in con.sidcr- 
ation of a bill of excliani^^e hcin*; taken nji, is not an act of 
bankruptcy.^ Xor is the assignnjent Ly a trader of all his ])roiH 
erty as security for an advance of money, ^vhich he afterwardp 
applies in payment of existing debts, necessarily jraudiilent 
within the meaning of the Bankrupt laws. In order to make 
such an assignment fraudulent, the lender must he aware that 
tho borrower's object was to defeat or delay his creditors.' 

An assignment by a man, not of the whole of his property 
and effects, but of his property and effects, with a real an<l sul)- 
stautial exception, is not a fraud within the meaning of the 
Bankrupt laws.* But the deed is invalid, althongh a substan- 
tial part of the property and effects of the assignor be not com- 
prised in it, if the necessary consequence of it ])e to cause 
insolvency, or to defeat and delay creditoi-s.' The rule a])plie8 
with peculiar force, if the fact of his embarrassed circnm.Ntances 
be known, or must be necessarily taken to be kno\Am, by the 
assignee.* 

Objections, however, to an assignment or other transaction, 
as being in fraud of the Banknipt laws, are removed if it is 
founded on a legal obligation entered into hond Jide for a good 
and valid consideration. Any legal obligation which would 
render an assignment imimpeachable, if made when the obliga- 
tion was lirst incurred, will protect it if made afterwards.' 
"Where money was lent on a verbal promise to give security, 
and a deed was executed, two days before bankruptcy, purport- 

« Whitmore v. Clar'ul^'e, 33 L. J. Q. t-. Chapman, 12 C. B. 103; Halo v. All- 

B. 87. I'Utt, 18 C. B. 52fi ; Youn;c: v. Waud, S 

' Mercer v. Peterson, L. R. 3 Exch. Exch. 221 ; ii!T-/)nr/e Wensley, 1 D. J. «t 

104. S. 281 ; Goodricke v. Taylor, 2 D. J. J: 

» Re Colcmoro. L. R. 1 Cli. App. 12S. S. 1 3."). 

* IVniu-U «'. Reynolds, 11 C. B. N. S. " Ez-parte Bailey, 3 D. M. «fr G. 546; 

709 ; Sniitli i'. Timins. 1 H. ifc C. 849. Youn:; v. Fletcher' 3 II. A" C. 732. See 

' Stancer i'. Wilkin*. 19 Beav. (i2ti; Loak*'^ f. Younjr, .") E. it K '.'t'..V 

Smith .'. Cannan. 2 E. it B. ATy; Ex- ' Harris v. Ritkctt. 4 H 4 >'. 1. 
parte Bland, 6 D. M. <& G. 757; Graham 



2i>l Mis( i:i,lam:(»i s ikaids. 

iiu; to ho an ahsdluto a.->i^niiu'nt to tlie cTcditoi* of (he cquitj 
of rcnk'niption in snnic ])n>|>erty, it wha ht'hl tliat the pronuse 
was sufliciont to suji]>i«rf the <hrth' So, also, whrrc a marriaije 
is 8(»U'tuni7A'il upon the laith of a former fnoKi tif/<' contract of 
niarriai^c, it pccnis tlic scttk-nicnt will he maintained, even 
though at the time c»f the solemnization the hushand may he 
insolvent within the knowlcdjj^e of the wife, if sncli knowled^' 
is not shown to have e.\i>ted at the time of (he contract,' pro- 
vided no act of liankniptey has been actually committed at the 
date of the marriai^e with the knowledi^c of the wife.' 

Any le^al obligation ])resently to assi*;n which is not of the 
assignor's own creation will excuse an assignment so far that it 
shall not he fi-amlulcMl within (he meaning (»f the Bankruj)t 
laws.* If the obligation be his own creation, as if incurred by 
his own contract, <»r uj)on his nndertaking, then the linutati(»n 
must be added that it is such an obligation as he might without 
fraud have incurred.' 

A debtor may at common law give one creditor a prefer- 
ence over another ; ^ but there is fraud against the Bankrupt 
laws, if a man in contem])lation of bankruj)tcy gives one cred- 
itor a perferencc over another. In order to constitute a fraud- 
ulent preference, the transaction must not only be in contem- 
plation of bankruptcy, but It must be luinly voluntary." It" 
the circumstances of the party who makes the payment or ex- 
ecutes the assignment, are at the time of the ]iaymcnt, or of 
the execution of the assignment, to his knowledge in such a 
situati<jn, that he must reasonably expect bankruptcy to be tin; 
necessary conse<pieiu'e of his act, the payment or the assign- 
ment must be taken to have been made in (•on(emplation of 



' MorrUr. Vonnl.l.s, ir. W. U. 2 ' Hutfon r Cnitlwcll, 1 K. JL 1\. l.V 

' FraJMT I'. TlmtiijiNun, fi .lur. N S. * Suj.rn, pp. '2\2, '2\,i. 

6««; 4 I). A J. «.')'.•. ' l!r..\vM /•. K.-rnplon. lH L. J. C. V. 

' /''. Si'u ColoiiiljitH' r. rciiliall, 1 .^m. 1T<»; .slirub>ul»' v. ^uasnuin, 10 C U. N. 

^G. V:2K. §uprrt. p. 202. S. 4b'J. 

• I'nyno r. Hornby, 25 Uenv. 280. 



MIS€ELLANi:()L\S FKAIDS. 285 

bankruptcy.* Tlicre is fraiululent preterenc'C, if tlie intent ho 
to give ])ivlt'rcncu in the event of ])aukniptcy.'~' 

It was fornierly supposed that, in order to pre\ent a trans- 
action being void as a fraudulent ])reference, it was neceasary 
to show sonietliing like coercion or pressure on the ]jart of tlic 
creditor, and a reluctant yielding by the debtor; but the only 
question in cases of the sort is wlietlier tlie act is voluntary on 
the i)art of the debtor. Pressure is not necessai-y to prevent a 
payment or assignment from being a fraudulent preference. It 
is sufficient that the payment or assignment is not the sponta- 
neous act of the debtor.^ If the payment or assignment origi- 
nates with, oris simply by the act and will of the debtor, there 
is a fraudulent preference ; but, if the creditor demands ])ay- 
ment, pressure is not necessary on his part to take it out of the 
class of voluntary acts. A mere /Mmd fide demand by the 
creditor, without any pressure, is sufficient to support a pay- 
ment or transaction made in consequence.* A request bj a 
surety that the money for the payment of which he is ulti- 
mately responsible may be paid over by the debtor to the cred- 
itor, prevents such payment by the debtor from being a volun- 
tary payment, just as much as a request by the creditor himself.' 

It is not, however, enough to remove the objection of 
fraudulent preference, that a demand for payment should be 
made. It must appeal- tliat the demand operated on the mind 
of the debtor in inducing him to make the payment.^ A 
demand for payment will not of itself legalize the payjuent, if 
the debtor was uuiiiliuenccd thereby, and the payment was 



' Gibbins v. riiillip?, 7 B. it C. 520 ; < Mogs? v. Baker, 4 M. k W. PvJS ; Stra- 

Flook »'. Jonis, 4 \V\\\^. 20; Aklrcil v. chan v. Barton, 11 Excli. iVlT: Brown r. 

Constable, 4 y. B. G74; Johnson v. Kempton, lit L. J. C. P. 17i» ; Jolmson r. 

Fescnieyer, 3 L>. A J. '24 ; Ex-parte Ftsemcver, 3 D. «L- J. 24 ; Edwards r. 

Wensley. 1 D. J. & S. 281. Glvn, 2 El. <t El. 43. 

' Brown v. Kimpton, 19 L. J. C. P. * Edwards v. Glvn, 2 EI. & El. 47. 

169. • Cook V. Pritchard, Sc. N. U. 34; 

* Johnaon v. Fescmeyer, 3 D. A J. 24. Brown v. Kempton, I'J L. J. C. P. 169. 



2S0 MiscELLAXnors fratds. 

Tnndo voluntarily l»y lliu drlitor, and with a view to prejudice 
his other ereditui-s.* 

Other eireuinstances, bcpi<le8 n demand for payment on the 
part of the creditor, may reliut tlie ]>re.-<unipti(in of fraudulent 
l>referenee on the ]>art «if tlu- dilitur. Although the trans- 
action is apparently volniitaiy, if ilio cflect of the evidence is 
to show that the desire to irive a fraudulent preference was 
not the motive o}>erating on the delator in handin<; over his 
assets to the ]>artieular dehtor, the transaction is valid.' If 
the dehtor, thouirh he was aware that bankruptcy was unavoid- 
able, and th<»u<^h no api)lication was nuide for paynuiit, has 
paid the debt simj>]y in dischari,'e of an obligation he had 
entered into to pay it on a given day, without any view of 
giving a preference to the particular creditor at the cxjhmisc of 
the rest, the payment would not be a fraudulent preference 
within the meaning of the Bankrujit laws.' 

The knowledge of the creditor jireferred, or his privity to 
the circumstances, is not to be taken into consideration in 
estimating whether a transaction is, or is not, a fraudulent 
preference. If it appear that a demand was nuide by the 
creditor, it is immaterial that he may have been aware of the 
insolvency of the debtor.* 

If ])roperty be granted to a man defeasible on his bank- 
ruiitcv, the grant is good, if made by a j)erson other than the 
bankrui»t, and if the condition is e.\i)ress.' But the law is 
clearlv settle<l that no man ])ossesse<l ot' pn-jiirty can reserve 
tliat projicrty to hinisclf, until he hhall bcc-iuc bankrupt, and 
then j)rovide that in the event of bankruptcy it shall pass to 
another, and not to his creditors.' A covenant t»r bond by a 

• (V)k V. K<>K>-rH. 7 Hin;,'. 4.'J8. • Uw f. CnWwn, 2 T. U. 1:5.1 ; Doe t.. 

» I'.illH V. Smith. •■ U. A S. U'Jl. Ilovnn. U M. it S. '.i:>'\ ; It.mimolt »•. H«-(l- 

' J6. Hunt r. .MortiniLT, !'• H. .t C for.l. :i V.««. U'.t. ft T. U. fiSI ; Scyiii.mr 

44 V I,iu-ii!<. '.:".• L. . I. Cli. S41 ; (irillitli luul 

' lMvi*»ii r. Kobtniion, 3 .liir. N. .S. llulm. II. mk. '111. 

7'.(1. ' Hi-liil)..tliam r. Ililim', U» Vc9. 88; 



MISCELLANKOr.S IKAIDS. 2H7 

juaii to i>:iy inoneys upon tlic contin<^ciicy of liis l):iiikruj)tcy, 
ovc'ii tli()U;;;h <:;ivc'ii in consideration of niarria^a', is u I'raiid 
upon the JJaukrupt laws, and cannut bu upheld/ except as far 
as tlio value of the wife's fortune may extend.'' If tlie court 
can lind a definite sum wliicli can be a))[)ropriat('d as the wife's 
property, tlie covenant will to that extent be supported.' The 
foi-tune of a wife may be settled on her husband till he shall 
become bankrupt, or make a composition with his creditors, 
and then to her separate use.* 

As8i<^ments by a trader of all his property and effects in 
trust for all his creditors were, under the old Bankrupt laws, 
held void ; ' but they were protected to a certain degree, and 
under certain conditions, by the Bankruptcy Act, 1849,^ and 
are still further protected by the Bankruptcy Act, 1861.' By 
the 192d section of the latter Act, trust deeds for the benefit 
of creditors, composition and inspectorship deeds are binding 
on all the creditors of a certain debtor, if certain specified 
conditions are complied with. The power, however, given by 
the clause enabling the majority of creditors to bind the non- 
assenting minority, must be exercised hondjide for the benefit 
of all the creditors. It is necessary, in order to make a deed 
of this description binding, that it should be free from all 
taint of fraud. If there is a fraudulent bargain for the benefit 
of some creditors, or if the majority of creditors are induced 
by friendly feelings towards tlie debtor to accept a composition 
greatly disproportioned to the assets, the court will hold the 
(l(!ed not biudiuir on the non-assenting creditors. But if the 



Iligginson v. Kelly, 1 Ba. & Be. 255 ; ' Ilig^inson v. Kelly. 1 Ba. k Be. 255; 

Jk Casey's Trusts, 4 Jr. Cli. 247 ; Whit^ Lester v. Garland, 5' Sim. 2' '5; Wbit- 

inore v. Mason. 2 J. tt II. 212. See more i-. Mason, 2 J. «fc II. 2i>t. 
Holmes i-. iV-nney, 3 K. &, J. I<t2. ' Ih. 

* Ei-parte Hill, 1 I'ox, :jno ; Ex-parte * Lester v. Garland, 5 Sim. 222; Shar^i 

Cooke, S Ves. ;{53 ; Ex-parte Murphy, 1 v. Cosscrntt, 20 IJeav. 470. 
Sch. & Lef. 4S ; lli<;inbothnm v. Holme, » (Jrittitli and Holm, on Bank. 120. 

19 Ves. KS; Hi:r,'iiisuu r. Kelly, 1 Bu. • 76. '.•S7. 

i Be. 25 J. ' Jb. I102. 



288 Misci-.i.i.ANi'.ors ri;\ri»s. 

asi?entini; majority !i|»i>rar t.> liavr i«.\iTci.-('<l tlicir disorction 
hmd ji(h l'<«r the Lnictit ct* tlu> crodit.irs, tliu court will not 
review the quantum of the ('(nuposition.' There is fraud upon 
the clause, if a man havin<^ no lussets ]>rofc.-.<t's to assign all his 
property to fictitious creditors.' 

FRAUD UPON l{i:STUAININ(; STATUTES. KTC. 
In addition to those alri-ady eiiuiiieiatcd, there are other 
frauds upon statutes or acts of rarlianient airaiiist which relief 
may he had ine(piity:* such as, fraud ui-nii tlie restraiiiiuir 
statutes;' fraud ui»oii tlie reiristry acts:* fraud upon a private 
act of Parliament ; ' and fraud (<n the revenue laws. 



e 



FKAII) IN AWARDS. 
Courts of equity have fn-ni a very early period had juris- 
diction to set aside awards on the ground of fraud,' and still 
entertain the jurisdiction, except where it is excluded hy 
statute.* t 

> Ezmrte Cowcn, L. R. 2 Cli. Apr- * "fi^nrd v. Enrl of Slirewsbury. L. 

pg.j ' R. "J ll.. App. 772. 

^'lU Clunn 1-2 W. R. lOO:?. " Kviiiis v. Uulianlson, 3 Mor. 409. 

» Dean and Chai.tiT of Windsor r. ' (Jm-nJiill v. riirnch. W It.-j). Ch. 49; 

rcnvin. M...,r. 7H'.». Rrown .. Hn.wn. 1 Vorn. i:.f.; Enrl ... 

« Curti;*!'. IVrry, Vc3.730; Osborne Stoikcr. '1 Vcrn. '251 ; IJurton r. Knight, 

... WiHiunifi. ly Ve*'. 379; liuttersby r. »^/'H-. , ^,„ .^ ,„ ,,,,-. 

Smvlh 3 Madd. 110. >"»"« ••• ^^ l»tmorc, 1 II. .t M. 5,... 

""^ • 2 D. J. A- S. Uy?. 



♦ "WbatcviT i;^ (l'>n(.' in frnul of a liiw. i-s tlonc in violation of it. Lcc r. 
Lcc, 8 Pet. 44. 

t The jurisdiction of Chanrcry ttvcr jiid^rniints on awiirtN i.s contincd 
to thow ca.<i-« uhcn- ii court of i'<|uity is aiithoriztd to i-xainiiir into and 
(Iccn-e u|M)n tlu- ju(l;rm<nt of a court of common law, runtlcrcd upon tlio 
verdict of a jury. There maybe certain otlur (usi-.s wlicre, from fraud, 
corruption, or mislx'havior, it may be mcesj-ary to make the arbitrators 
parties in equity, in onler to obtain a diKcovery, und in whii li an exten- 
sion «»f tlie jurisdiction of a court of equity Ixyond this limit may Ikj 
allowed. Waplcs c. Woples, 1 llarring. Wi, ; Emerson r. Udali, U Yt 
472. 



MISCELLANKOUS FRAUDS. 280 

In cases wlicrc flic siiliiiiissi(»ii to ••irhitratioii was by agree- 
ment between the jKirties, the only mode of ol>tainin;^ relict' 
formerly against an award whicli liad been obtained un<ler 
cireuinstances of fraud and corrn])tion on the part of the 
arbitrator, was Iiy bill in e4uity. r<ut if the agreement 
or submission to arbitration be in writin^r, and foiitain a 
])roviso that it may be made a rule of court, the case is now 
governed by stat. 9 & 10 Will. Ill, c. 15, and the jurisdiction 
of equity is excluded.^ A court of equity lias no jurisdiction, 
even on the ground of fraud, if a submission has been made a 
rule of a court of common law under the statute.^ 

If there be a proviso in the agreement or submission to 
arbitration enabling the parties to make it a rule of court, it is 
immaterial that it may not have been actually made a rule of 
court until after the award has been made, or until after hill 
tiled." The Court of Chancery is one of the courts of record 
invested with summary jurisdiction under the statute."* If 
there was no proviso in the agreement or submission to arbi- 
tration enabling the parties to make it a rule of court, the 
jurisdiction M-as, until a recent period, exclusive in e<piity.' 
But by the seventeenth clause of the Common Law Procedure 
Act, 17 & IS Yict. c. 125, it is declared that every agreement 
or submission to arbitration by consent, whether by deed or 
instrument in writing, may be made a rule of a court of 
common law, unless a contrary intention appears. The mere 
existence, however, of a power to make an agreement or sub- 
mission to arbitration a rule of court, is not tantamount to an 
agreement that it shall be made so, nor does it of itself, and 
independently of agreement, exclude the ordinary jurisdiction 



' Hcminc: t-. Swincrton, 2 Ph. TO ; ' Nichols v. Roc, 3 M. <fe K. 439 ; 

Smith i: ^\ liitnioro, 1 II. «t M. 57G, 2 Ileniinsf v. SwiniTton. 2 IMi. 7'J. 
D. J. <fe- i^. 207. * lleuiing i-. Swinerton, 2 Ph. 70. 

* Auriol r. Smith, T. <t R. 121 ; Daw- ' c Mills. 17 Vc.'». 419; Good- 

6oa V. Sadler, 1 Sim. & St. 537. man v. Savers, 2 J. <k W. 24'J. 



-!*'^ MISCELLANKOrS FRAUDS. 

1)1* the court.* If iIkto Ito ik. ju-oviso tliat it may be made a 
rule of c-tdirt, it dofs iiut l»i'cumc :i niK- of (•«iiirt under the 
Coimnon Law rrotvdure Act, unless it be actually made a rule 
of court.' 

JJeforc the statute '.• cV lU AVill. Ill, c. 15, courts of law 
were in the practice, upon consent of i)arties, of referrin«r causes 
to arbitration, cither l»y rule of court, or by order of a jud^'c, or 
at nijti j)riuSf and of nuiking the submission at the same time a 
rule of court. In such cases courts (»f ccpiity exercised a concur- 
rent jurisdiction over the award made uj)on the reference with 
courts of law, and the statute of AVilliam does not appear to have 
interfered with the juiixlictioii.^ Xor has the jurisdiction been 
excluded by the eidar<j;ed powers conferred on courts of com- 
mon law by the Common Law Procedure Act, 17 ife 18 Vict, 
c. llT).* It is, however, the rule of the court not to interfere 
with an award made under a reference at law, unless there bo 
something in the circumstances of the case to show or to make 
it appear that a court of law has not full ]H»wcr and jurisdic- 
tion to grant full and adequate relief. The fact that a court of 
common law has a i)ower of remitting the award for recon- 
sideration, has weight with the Court of Chancery when called 
ujiou to interlere.' 

There is fraud in an award if it be obtained through cor- 
rujition or ])artiality on the ])art of the arbitrat(»r.* * In a case 



• Smitli V. Whitmorc, 2 D.J. it S. 308; * gj} 8-li^. 

prr 'i'uriitT. L. J. * l.tindoinlcrry nnd Enniskilli'ii Unil- 

^ III. wnv Co. r. I^.i'sliiiiaii. 12 11. av. fj;} ; 

* Lord Lonsdnl.' i-. I/ittl.-.inlc, 2 V«s. JlaVdiiiL,' i: W ickliam, 2 .1. .t II. (\7(5. 
Jr. 4.'il ; Niclioli r. Cliali.-. 11 Vi-s, 2r.7 ; " l..or.i Loiisd iK? r. I.iui.diili-, 2 V«'8. 
NirhoUti r. U(K', .'J .M. it K. i:t;t; Clmc-k Jr. 45a ; Liiiyood v. L'rouclior, 2 Atk, 
f. rniiHT. 2 I'h. 177; Hunlin^'r. Wick- auO. 

ham, 2 J. d: II. 07*>. 



* It is mi»l>ohiivi()r in nrl)ilrutf»rs tc rcpotc unrliie confidence in tho 
unpruved Htjiti'mt-ntM ofone oltlw parlicH. Leo r. I'atillo, 4 FioiK'N 480. 
for MiJ.slK'Imvior in tlio iirl)ilr.iti»n», \>y refusing to hear nmtcrial 



Misci:LLANi:()rs rRArns. 201 

v.licn^ arliitratoM lia<l, citluT hy lorcc or iViui<l, cxcliidcil u 
ci)-:irl)itrator, or either of the parties, from their meetings, it 
was lield to I'uniish fiucli a j)resiim[)tion of corruj)tioii Jis to be 
a sullicicnt ground for setting aside tlic award.^ So, also, it is 
against good faitli ior a person appointed arhitnitor to consider 
liimself as agent of the ])(.'rson a])})(jintiii;r liiin,'^ or t<» hiiy uj) 
tlie iinsustained chiims of any of tlie parties to the reference.^ 
So, also, there is fraud if the award has been obtained by Iraud 
or concealment of material circumstances on the part of one 
of the jmrties, so as to ini.-had tlie arliitrator. If either party 
be guilty of fraudulent concealment of matters which he ought 
to have declared, or if he wilfully mislead or deceive the 
arbitrator, the award nuiy be set aside.* An award will n(>t, 
however, be set aside on the ground that the arbitrator has 
been mislead by the evidence of a witness who might have 
been cross-examined.'^ There is also fraud to set aside an 
award, if the award l)e obtained by undue means; as, for 
instance, if the witnesses have been examined in the aljsence 
of the parties;^" or if the award has been made clandes- 

' Burton >: KiU'^ht, 2 Vcrn. 514. See Ab. Arbitr (1 n) 30, 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 80; 

IIai<;h v. Uu'v^h, o 1). K. ct J. 15'.t. Ives v. Metcalfe. 1 Atk. 64 ; Gartside v. 

" Calcraft v. Roebuck, 1 Ves. Jr. 220. Gartside, 8 .\nst. TMo. 

• Blennerhasset v. Day, 2 Ba. & Be. » Piltiiore v. Hood, 8 Scott, ISO. 
116. » Jie I'lews v. Middleton, « Q. B. 845. 

* South Sea Co. v. Bumpstead, Vin. See Ilaigh v. Uaigh, 3 D. F. «L- J. 159. 



testimony, an avrani will be set aside. Van Cortland r. Underhill, 17 
Johns. 405 ; s. c. 2 Johns. Ch. 3:J9. 

An award estimatinEr damaijes or the value of property will not be set 
aside in equity, unless the estimate is so enormously disproportioned to 
the ease proved as to strike every one that there must have l>een corruption 
and partiaUty. Hand r. Kcdinirton, 1:5 N. II. 72; Bum pass r. Webb, 4 
Port. Co ; Beverly v. RennoMs, Wythe, 10.5 ; Van Cortland i\ Underhill, 17 
Johns. 405 ; s. c. 2 Johns. Ch. 339. 

* Pierce v. Perkins, 2 Dcv. Eq. 250; Emery r. Owings, 7 Gill, 488; 
EJiowlton r. Xickles, 29 Barb. 4G3. 



•j'.i'j mis(Ki.i,.\m:<>i s nj\rr)a. 

tiuely without liearintj cai-li party ; ' * ».r if the awanl lias hccn 
iniule by one iirliitnitor apart from the otliers;' or if iiitt-rviews 
liave taken i)laoo between the arbitrator and one i)arty in tho 
absence of the others.' So, also, the existence of any ^'round 
calculated ti) bias the mind of the arbitrator, unknown to 
either cf tho parties, is sufliciciit tor tho interference of the 
court ; * or if one of the parties has not been allowed a proper 
opportunity of disoussini; his case." If interviews have taken 
]>lace between the arbitrator and one of the parties, in tho 
absence of the other, similar misconduct on the part of the 
pereon aj>i>lyin-r will not i>rovont the court from settiuf^ asido 

' Ives V. Modcalfi-, 1 Atk. 01 ; Hard- ' Ilnrvcj' v. Shelton, 7 Boav. 455. 

in:; v. Witklimii. 2 J. »t H. <>7t'). J?ec * Konip v. Rose, 1 GitF. 'ir>H. 

Sinitlt f. Wliitiiiorc. 1 II. A" .M. T'Tn. ' Spctliquc i*. Carpenter, 3 P. Wnia 

» JiC ricws V. Miadlctoii, 6 (I B. 852. 301. 



* Peters F. Newkirk, Cow. 10:] ; Lutz r. Lintliifum, 8 Pet. 178 ; Jordan 
r. Hyatt, 3 Bar'.). G:J4 ; Rigden r. Martiu, II. ic J. 40:i; Walker r. City 
Council, 1 Bailey's Ch. 443. 

Evidence cannot be introduced without giving the opposite party an 
oppi)rtunity for cross-examination. Shinni-; r. Coil, 1 McCord's Ch. 478. 

Merely recalling a witness who had l»een examined, for the i)urpose of 
explaining his testimony, in the absence of ImhIi parties, is not a sullicient 
ground. Ilerrick r. Blair, 1 Johns. Ch. 1(»1. 

The mere fact that a party offered ami prevailed before the arliitrators, 
upon a groundless claim, is no ground for charging him with fraud. The 
mere fart tiiat he considered it one of doubtful ecjuity, or even honestly 
iK-lieved that it was not well foumled, if all the faets known to him were 
fairly laid before the arliitrators, is no such frau.l as will justify a court of 
equity in interfering. He must, either by the suggestion of fal.sehood, or 
the suppression of truth, have presented to the arbitrators a state of facta 
in regard to the merits of the claim which were fictitiou.s, and which he at 
the time believed to be such. Emerson r. Udall, 13 Vt. 477 ; Buikley c. 
Starr, 2 Day, b'»2. 

The discovery of new evidence, or that the case might be put on a 
different footing by new evidence, or that a more jx-rfect rule might have 
iKcn adopted, are no groumls for an application to Chancery to have an 
uwurd set a.«ide. Allen r. Hanney, 1 Ct. flO'J. 

New evidence may be so dccihive, ami have been so suppressed by tho 
adverse party, thit an awar.l ought to be relieved ag.iinst in etiuity. 
Lankton c. Bcott, Kirby, [iW. 



MISCELLANEOUB FRAUDS. 2!).'J 

the awunl, t'nr the iiuittur coiiconis tliu «luc inliiunistratioii of 

justice.* 

E(|uity will not p;ivc relief an;ainst an awanl, if the eondiiet 
of the party making the application has been such us to 
destroy his right to resort to the court lor relief.^ An agree- 
ment for reference, accordingly, cannot be set aside as obtained 
by undue pressure, if the party objecting has attended tlu; 
reference, and taken the chance of an award in his tavor.' Xor 
can relief be had against an award when there has been any 
laches on the part of the person making the applicaticm/ 
Similar misconduct, however, to that complained of on the 
part of the person making the application, will not prevent the 
court from setting aside an award, if the award has been 
obtained by undue means.' 

FRAUD m JUDGMENTS. 
A judgment or decree obtained by fraud upon a court, 
binds not such court or any other, and its nullity upon tliis 
ground, though it has not been set aside or reversed, may be 
alleged in a collateral proceeding.®* " Fraud," said De Grey, 
C. J., '' is an extrinsic, collateral act, which vitiates the most 

' Ilnrvcy v. Sli(>lton, 7 Bcav. 455. G74 ; Kichols v. Hancock, 7 D. M. it (i. 

» Sinitli V. Whitmore, 1 11. it M. 576, 30i). 
2 D. J. it 8. 297. ' Ilarvey v. Shelton, 7 Bcav. 455. 

' Oniics V. Bcadd, 2 Giff. 166, 2 D. F. ' Philii)i'ison v. Lord Eirremont, 6 Q. 

<fe J. 333; i-x-partc Wyld, 2 D. F. & J. B. 582; Lord Baiidon v. Beelier, 3 CI. 

642. it Fin. 510 ; bluildon v. Patrick, 1 Ma((|. 

*"jonc3 V. Bennett. 1 Bro. P. C. 528. 53.") ; Kci?. v. Saddlers' Co., 10 II. L. 

See Ead3 v. Williams, 4 1>. M. it G. 431, },cr Willes, J. See Tommey v. 

White, 4 11. L. 313. 



* "Webster v. Reitl, 11 IIow. 437 ; Caqienter v. ITart, 5 Cal. 400. 

Jiulixmcnts, whether confessed or rendered upon a verdict, may l>c 
attacked collaterally as fraudulent against creditors. Clark c. Douglass, 
63 Penn. 408. 

A judgment may be attacked collaterally for some matter arising sul>- 
Bcquently to the entry of it. as payment or a relea-^e, which would show 
that it was kept ou foot fraudulently. Campbell r. Sloan, 63 Penn. 
481. 



204 MISCELLANEOUS lUAl I)S. 

solemn prooccdiiif:^ of courts of justici'. Lord (\)ke says it 
avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical and tt iniMnal." ' * In 
a])j)lvi!ii; this rule, it matters imt wlittlur tlu- jiidiifiueut ini- 
j»ui:ned has been pronounced by an interior or by the highest 
court of judicature in the realm, but in all cases alike it is 
competent for every court, whether superior or inferior, to 
treat as a nullity any judgment which can ]»e clearly shown to 
have been obtained by manifest fraud.^ AVhether an innocent 
party would be allowed to prove in one court that a judgment 
against him in another court M'as obtained by fraud, is a cpies- 
tion not eipially clear, as it would be in his ]>ower to apply 
directly to the court which ]»ron(»unced it to vacate it.' But, 
however this point may be ultimately determined, thus much 
is evident, that a guilty i»arty would not be jiermitted to defeat 
a judgment by showing that, in obtaining it, he had j)racticed 
an impositition on the court, for it would be an outrage on 
justice and common sense if a person could thus avoid the 
consequeuces of his own fraudulent conduct.* 

FRAUD UPON THE CROWX. 
A conveyance executed in fraud of jtroceedings under an 
outlawry, is a fraud upon the Crown, and will be set aside." 

• Rex «•. I)uclicf»9 of Kingston, 20 ' rriullmm v. I'liilipiis, 2 Anibl. 7fi3; 
How. St Tr. r.44, 2 Sinitli's L. C. t'.HT. 2i» H.iw. St. Tr. il'J, Jsl ; Kox c. Duch- 
St-e Urownsword v. Kdwnnl.s, 2 Vcj^. e.s.') of Kinirstoii. 2ti How. St. Tr. C-H. 
246; Mfildowcrofl v. lluiriicnin, 4 Moo. * I'rudtuim i'. I'liilipii.i, 2 Anib. 763, 
1*. C. :iK«; IVrry v. Mc<l«lrnviroft, H) 20 How. St. Tr. 47'.i; Doo t-. IlobortH, 2 
Ik-av. 122; lIurriMJii i'. Mayor ic. of li. tfc AM. ;{67 ; lioasey v. Wiiuiliam, 6 

Soiitlifimi»toi). 4 I). .M. it <;. "na. q. b. itw;. 

* SheddfU i-. rtilrkk, 1 Miictj. 5;i5. » Att.-tJcn. v. Richards, 1 I'll. 383. 



* Gill r. Carter, J. J. Mnrsh. 481 ; Ilall r. Hall, 1 Gill, aoi ; Wilson r. 
Watt.'*, y M(l. '.ir>i\. 

"With any fraiKbilcnt conduct of parties in oblaininj; u juilL'inont, or in 
attempting to avail thcnisilvcs of it, a court of c<|uity can rcLjuIarly tako 
cojfni/Jincf. The tnio and intrin.sic character of proci-ctlln^'s, a» well in 
courts of law a** in jhiIm, is alike hulijcct to tlic wniliny of u court of 
C(|uity, which will probe, uud cither sustain or annul them, according to 



MlSCELLANEOrS FKAIUS. 295 

FRAUD UPON COURTS OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION. 

A court of equity will give assistance to enforce the jti<lg- 
mcnts, decrees, or sentences of other courts of conij>etent 
and lawful civil jurisdiction, when the execution of such judg- 
ments, decrees, and sentences is defeated or obstructed by 
fraudulent contrivances.^ 

A voluntary settlement, accordingly, of real and personal 
estate, made by a man who was defendant in a suit in the 
Ecclesiastical Court, with the intent of withdrawing his ])roi>- 
crty from the process of that court, was set aside.^ Although 
the deed may have been executed before any right was de- 
clared, or any order for payment of money was made, yet if it 
appear tliat the deed was executed for the purpose of defeating 
the right which the defendant knew the plaintiff was entitled 
to establish, it will be considered to have been executed with 
the view and intention of defrauding him.^ 

FRAUD UPON THE LEGISLATURE. 

In Yauxhall Bridge Co. v. Earl Spencer,^* it was held 
that an agreement between a land-owner and a company, that, 
in the event of his not opposing an application to Parliament, 
the land-owner should receive a sum of money, is a fraud 
upon the legislature if concealed from Parliament, and is, 
therefore, void upon grounds of public policy. But the priu- 

' Blenkinsopp v. Blenkinsopp, 12 M D. M. «fe G. 500. 

Beav. 58t^. * 2 iladd. 306 ; S. C. Jac. C4. 

» lb. 1 D. M. <fe G. 500. 



their real character, and as the ends of justice may reqnirc. Bvcrs p. 
Surget, 19 How. 303 ; s. c. 1 Hemp. 715 ; Williams v. Fowler, 2 J. J. Marsh. 
405 ; Griffin r. Skcto, 30 Geo. 300. 

* Misrepresentation and concealment employed in obtaining an act of 
the legislature, are ground fur a court of equity to give relief by depriving 
a party of such unjust advantage obtained thereliy. State v. Reed, 4 II. ic 
McH. 6; Williamson v. Williamson, 3 Smed. ic Mar. 715. 



200 LOSS ov iiiciTT TO mrKAni 

ciplo ujion wliicli tliat casi" was foiuuU'tl is t'l.iMi to much ques- 
tion. Tlu' hrttrr njtjni.m wouM sicin t(t be, tliat there is no 
Iraud ujK)!! the h',iri>lature unless the a<,'ivenuMit is one which 
the j)arties are bound to connnunicate. There may be cases 
in which an agreement of the sort shouhl be ((immunicated to 
the le'Mslature, but there can be no doubt that in ordinary 
cases it is open to parties to enter into such an aj^reement, and 
that there is no obliiration incumbent on them to connnunicate 
it t(» the le^i^ishiture.' Tlie quest ion whetlier sudi an a-j^rce- 
ment is binding on the conquiuy uller incorporation, is a very 
diHerent one. 



SECTION Vh-TlOW THE VAGUT TO IMPEACTT A TRANS- 
ACTION ON TIIK (iliUlN]) OF FKAri) MAY BE 
LOST. 

Tkansactions, althouf^h impeachable in e<piity at the time 
of inception, and for some time afterwards, on the ground of 
fraud, may become unimpeachable l)y a subsequent confirma- 
tion, by acquiescence, or by the niere lapse of time. 

CONFIRMATION. 

In order that an act may have any effect or validity as a 
continuation, it must clearly a])pear that the party coutirming 
was fullv apprised of liis right to imjteach the transaction, and 
acted freely, deliberately, and advisedly, with the intention of 
coniirming a transaction which he knew, or might, or ought, 
with rea.«onable or proper diligence, to have known to be 

» Simimon v. l-oni Ilowdfn, 10 A. A ini; i» loonl net of rftrliiiinotit. Mnnuh-o 

E. IW, '• <'l. A ^''"• •'•' ; Tiiylor. r. Clii r. (irnnJ Dock Colliury Co., lu tiim. 

chffitfr. Ac, Kuihviiy <"., K. K. '^ •'•l'-'. 
tjtcli. 366. 8of an to fraud hi obtnin- 



ON Tin: (iuuuNi) of ficald. 'JI)7 

imponcliiililc* It" liis ri;^lit to iiiipeucli the tranKaction \n: 
coueealcd tVum him, or a tree disclosure he not made to him of 
every circumstance whicli it is material for him to know, or if 
the act takes phice iiiidcr pressure or constraint, or l>y thi: 
exercise of undue inlhicnct', or un(U'r the delusive o])inion tliat 
tlie orii,dnal transaction is iiindini; on lum, oi- if it \u; merely a 
continuation of the original transaction, the coniirmation 
operates as nothing.'f Confirmation may be by will as well as 

' Cann i-. t'ann, 1 I'. Wins. 727; 42.1; Wi'iltlerburn »i. Wi'(l<krljurti, 2 

Cole »'. (Jibbons, ;i 1'. Wnis. 2'.Mi; Crowe Keen. 722; De Montmorencv v. Deve- 

I'. IJnllanl. :{ Bro. C. C. 1111, 2Cox, 2r):i; rciix, 7 Cl. ife Fin. 188; Muliialk'n v. 

Chesteifiolil r. Jaiusen, 2 Vcs. 125; Maniin, 3 Dr. <feWnr. .'517; Salmon «. 

Walker >: Symomls, 8 Sw. 1 ; Murray Cutts, 4 Deir. & S. 132; Stump v. fJaby, 

V. Palmer, 2'^ScIi. A Lef. 48C. ; Morse v. 2 1). M. .t G. 023; Koberts v. TunsUill. 

Uoyal, 12 Ve.s. 3r>r> ; J'urceil v. Macna- 4 Ha. 2.")7; Cockell v. Taylor, 15 Beav. 

niara, 14 Ves. 'Jl ; (Jowland v. De 125; Waters v. Tliorn, 22 Beav. 547; 

Faria. 17 Ves. 20; Wood )■. iJiMwnes. 18 Savery v. Kin^', 5 11. L. 1127; Atlie- 

Vcs. 128; Sav ''. Barwiek, 1 V. ifc B. na'Uin Life Society v. I'ooley, 3 D. <k J. 

195; Kncbe r." O'Brien, 1 B. & B. 338, TJ'J; Smith v. Kay, 7 IL L. 750; Wall 

340; Dunbar r. Trcddennick, 2 B. tt B. v. Cockcrell, 10 il. L. 229; Potts v. 

317; Moiony r. I/Estrani^e, Beat. 40f. ; Surr, 34 Beav. 543. 
Cockcrell v. Cliolmondeley, 1 II. ifc M. 



♦ Confirmation and ratification imply knowledge of a defect in the act 
to be confirmed and of the rii,dit to reject or ratify it. Ciimbcrhmd Coal 
Co. V. Sherman, 20 Md. 117. 

The party nnist l)c aware that the act he is doing will have the effect 
to confirm the transaction. CheiTy v. Newsora, 3 Yerg. 369. 

Ratification is the adoption of a previously formed contract, notwith- 
standing a vice that rendered it relatively void ; and by the verj- nature of 
the act of ratification, confinnation, or affirmance, the party confirming 
becomes a party to the contract; he that was not bound becomes bound 
by it, and entitled to all the benefits of it. He accepts the consideration 
of the contract as a Bufficient consideration for adopting it, and usually 
this is quite enough to support the ratification. PearsoU r. Chapin, 44 
Penn. 9. 

t IIolTman Steam Coal Co. r. Cumb 'rland Coal Co. 16 Md. 450 ; Cum- 
berland Coal Co. V. Sherman, 20 Md. 117 ; Williams r. Reed, 3 Mason, 40.">; 
Butler r. Haskell, 4 Dessau. Col; Cumberland Coal Co. r. Sherman, 30 
Barb. 533 ; McConniok r. Malin, 5 Blackf 509 ; Brodduc v. Call, 3 Call, 
546; Boyd r. Hawkins, 2 Dev. £q. 195; Kainsfbrd r. Rainsford. Spears' 
Ch. 385. 

Confirmation must be a solemn and deliberate act. When the original 
transaction is infected with fraud, the confinnation of it is so inronastent. 
20 



20S 



LOSS OF KiciiT ro imim;a('ii 



by deed.' It' mi iiidrpnidi'iit \"i:.\\ ndvisi-r I'C eiiiiiloyed, it 
will l.r assi.med that lu" li:i«l ^ati^lied liiiiisell' belore ai>i)roving 
(•f tlie transact iiiii, that it was fur the iK-uetit uf his client to 
conlirni it.' 

RELEASE. 

The same requisites which are necessary to render a con- 
firniution valid, are neees.-ary to rmder a release valid.^* 

ACQUIESCENCE. 

It is not necessary, in order t(» reiuler a ti-ansaction nnini- 
l)eachable, that any po.sitive act ot* conlirniatii>n or release 
should take i)lace. It is enoUirh, if ju-oof can be «;ivcn of a 
iixed and unbiassed determination not to impeach the transac- 
tion. This may be proved, either by acts evideuciu<^ acqui- 



' stump V. Cahv, 2 D. M. A G. 623. 
Sec Waters f. Tlium, 22 lieav. .117. 

' Stnnes v. I'nrker, 9 IJcnv. 388; Do 
Montmorency v. Devereu.x, 7 CI. «t 
Finn. 188; Asplaml v. Watte, 20 lieav. 
474. • 

> Lloyd V. Attwooil, 3 I). <t J. CI t ; 
Spackiiian's Ca.se, 34 L. J. C'li. 32'.t; 
Farranl v. IJlanclifonl, 1 I>. J. tt S. 
119; Avfline v. Mellniisli, 2 I). J. «t S. 
289. See SalkeUl v. Vernon, 1 Kilen, 
04; Uroderick v. Hroderick, 1 1*. \V. 
239; Cocking v. Pratt, 1 Ves. 400; 
Heron v. Heron. 2 Atk. IGO; I'usoy »'. 
Di-sbouvcric, 8 1'. Wuis. 816; Bteatl- 



man v. Pall'mir. 3 Atk. 423; Bowles v. 
Stuart, 1 Sell, it Lof. 2o'.i ; O'NeilU. 
Hiimill. Heat. 018; William.^ v. Smitli, 
7 L. .1. C'li. 129; Wuil.lerhuin v. Weil- 
(l.iliiirn, 2 Keen, 72S, 4 M. «tl'. 41; 
Millar i'. Craiu', *> Ueav. 433; Stanes p. 
I'arkfr, 9 Ueav. 385; Todd v. Wilson, 
ill. 480; Lindo v. Lindo, 1 lUav. 490; 
Duke of Leeds, v. Andier.st. 2 I'll. 117; 
'riiornlier f. Slicard, 12 Ileav. 589; 
i'arker r. liloxam, 2U IJcav. 29,'> ; Afl)*- 
lun<l r. Watte, ib. 4.st»; Eyro r. hur- 
mrster, K* II. L. IDO; Skilbeck v. Hil- 
ton, 2 L. U. K(i. n^7. 



with jiistico, nnd po likely to be ftrcompnnied with imposition, that tlie 
courts wat( h it with the utmost Ptriclncss, and do not allow it to stand 
but «in the clearest evidence, Cumberland Coal Co. r. Shtrmuii, 20 
Md. 117. 

The Icj^al title is supreme until attacked. If the injured ]»arty ratifies 
the ori'nnal transaction, the abandonment of his equitable claims removes 
ull doubt from tlje lej?al title, and it is as if nuspicion or cmbarnissment 
liad nev<*r attached to if. Comstock r. Ames, 3 Keyes, 'V>7. 

• .MicJioud r. CJinxl, 4 How. 503; IJradlcy r. Chase, 22 Me. 511 ; Tarson 
e. IIuKheH,0 Paige, 591. 



ON THE (iUni ND Ol" rilALlJ. 'J!M> 

cecenoo, or l)y flic incrc l.q.sc of time diiriiii: wliicli tin- 
tmnsaetiuii lias hceii allowc'tl to stand.' 

Acqnicsceiico or delay for a leiiL-'tli of time after a man i.s in 
a situation to enforce a ritjlit, aii<l with a full knowledge of 
facts, is, in equity, cogent evidence of a waiver aixl al)aiidoii- 
ment of the right.' * If a voidalde contract, or other transac- 
tion, is voluntarily acted on, with a knowledge of all the facts, 
in tlie hope that it may turn out to tlie advantage of a party 
wlio miglit liave avoided it, he may not avoid it when, after 
abiding that event, it has turned out to Jiis disadvantage.^f 

' Vandcrplnnk v. Kinj, S D. JI. & G. land v. Sidilall, 3 D. F. i J. 73; Skot- 

133. towe V. Williiirns, ib. hZr,. 

' Duke of Loed.s v. Lord Anilicrst, 2 ' Orrnos v. Bc-adel, 2 D. F. <t J. 33(5, 

Ph. 117, 123; Life Association of Scot> jicr Lord Ciimiibcll. 



* Crozier v. Acer, 7 Paige, 137; Davis v. James, 4 J. J. Marsh. 81 ; Pol- 
lard r. Rogers, 4 Call, 239; Moffatt r, Winslow, 7 Paige, 124; Saddler r. 
llobinson, 2 Stew. 520 ; Ayres r. Mitchell, 3 Smcd. & JIar. 383 ; 5Ioore r. 
Reed, 2 Irod. Eq. oSO; McXauglitou r. Partridge, 11 Ohio, 223; Knuckolls 
V. Lea, 10 lluuiiih. 577; Dougherty r. Dougherty, 3 Ilalst. Ch. 027. 

t Bruce v. Davenport, 3 Keyes, 472 ; Collier v. Thompson, 4 Mon. 81 ; 
Finley r. Lynch, 2 Bibb, 5GG ; De Armand t'. Philips, Walker's Ch. 18G; 
Blydenburch r. "Welsh, 1 Bald. 331 ; Edwards v. Roberts, 7 Smed. & Mar! 
544 ; Railroad Co. r. Rowe, 24 Wend. 74. 

A vendor liy bringing suit and recovering judgment for the purchase 
money, ratilies and conliims the sale. Xelson r. Carrington,4 Munf. 332; 
Sanger v. Wood, 3 Johns. Ch. 410; Pettus v. Smith, 4 Rich. Eq. 107. 

The matter of -waiver is not a conclusion of law from any particular 
incident, but a conclusion of fact deducible from all the acts of a party as 
evidence of his intention. Crawley r. Timberlake, 2 Ircd. Eq. 400. 

A party is bound to be prompt in communicating the fraud when dis- 
covered, and consistent in his notice to the opposite party of the use he 
intends to make of it. Carroll r. Rice, Walker's Ch. 373; Disbrow r. 
Jones, Ilarriug. Ch. 102; Street r. Dow, Ilarring. Ch. 427; Winn-atc r. 
King, 10 Shep. 95 ; Cain v. Guthrie, 8 Blackf. 409 ; Alexander r. Ultez, 7 
Ired. Eq. 242 ; Fratt v. Fiske, 17 Call. 380. 

A party seeking the rescission of a contract for fraud, must act with 
vigilance and promptness, and return, or olTor to return, the property to 
the vendor within a reasonable time after the discovery of the fraud." If 
the vendee keeps it and treats it as his own by putting it up for s:ile,.or 
exercising other acts of ownership over it, he cannot afterwards rescind 



.•^OO LOSS ov incnT to imitacii 

To iix a('quic?riMi«-t' u|h.ii a i.:iity it iini.-t unotjuivocnlly 
apjH'ar that lu- knew nr liad notice of the tm-t m'.-ii which tlu- 
allowed acquiet^ceiico h foun(le<l, and t<» which it ivl'ers.* Ac- 
quiesconce imports and is founded on knowli'd-re. A recogni- 
tion resiiltini; from iuMiorance of a material fact j^oes for 
nothinir. The question ns to acquiescence cannot arise unless 
the ]>arty au'ainst wliom it is set up was awan- of his ri_i,'hts, A 
man cannot be said to acquiesce in wliat he does not know, 
nor can he be l)Ound by acquiescence unless he is fully ap- 
prised as to his rii;hts and all the material facts and circum- 
stances of the case.'* 

' Rnndall v. Errinirton. 10 Vcb. 42S; Ilonnor v. Morton, a Riiss. 65; Cockcr- 

Spnckinnn's (^nse, 'M L. J. ( h. S'Jl. ell r. Cliolmi'loy. Tnnil. 4:i5 ; Austin r. 

rj'iO; Stanlioju's Cnsf. L. U. 1 Cli. ('l.aml)i'rs, f. i 1. A- Fin. 1; Charter r. 

App. 1'>1; btvwarl'd Case, L. U. 1 Ch. Tnvi-lyan, 11 Cl. »t Fin 714; Cockell 

Ajiji. M4. r. Taylor, l.'i B>'av. l'J'2; Hurrows »•. 

» Ilandall r. Errin^jton. 10 Yes. 42ft; Walls, r. I). M. .V. 2:$;{; Lloyd v. Att- 

BlcnncThassott v. Day. 2 B. A li. 104 ; wood. :J I). «fc J. i'.14 ; Savery v. Kin<;, 

Cholmondelcy v. Cliiiton, 2 Mcr. o(51; 6 II. L. 62T ; I'.riglit r. Lcgcrton, 2 D. 



the contract. Dill r. Camp, 22 Ala. 240 ; Taymon r. Mitchell. 1 Md. Ch. 
49G; Clement v. Smith, 'J Gill, l')t>; McCulloch r. Scott, l;{ B. Mon. 172. 

An oflTer to return, matle through the medium of the post-office, ii 
equivalent to a personal olTer, and secures to the vendee every benefit re- 
sultinir from it. IJamett i. Stanton, 2 Ala. 181. 

When the vendee, upon olTmiig to return the i)roperty, is infonncd 
that it will not Iw received, he neetl not jicrform the vain and idle task of 
makinff a personal tender. Tibbs r. Timberlake, 4 Litt 12. 

.V purchaser, after an offer to return, must deliver the goods to the 
vendor upon a reasonable demand, and a refusal to surrender, destroys the 
ftfect of the pnvious tender. Bennett r. Fail, 20 Ala. GOo. 

A imrty is only boun<l to the extent of his ncquicscenec ; Ix-yond that, 
he is entitled to relief. P<dlard r. Rogers, 4 Cull, 2:5'.i. 

' Flagg r. Mann, 2 Sumner. 4S0 ; Shackelford r. Hundley, 1 A. K. 
Marsh. 41)5; Shijip v. Swan, 2 Bibb, 82; (iarvin r. Lewez, 7 Smed. A: 

Mar. 24. 

.V l>arty must us«- reasonable diligence to ascertain the facts. Buford 
r. Brown, « B. Mon. r,:t'.l 

A party can not justly b«- regarded as continuing a coiitrart l>elieved 
to \k fraudulent l»e<-atjs<' he di<l not rrpudiate it at an earlier period upon 
• mere violent presumption of fraud instead of waiting until ho can clearly 
latablish it. Ir^intr r. Tliom:i«, fi Ship. 418. 



ox Tlir: (JUOLNI) OF I'KALD. 301 

Nor, indeed, is a recognition of avail wliidi assumcfl the 
validity <'t' a transaction, it" the question as to its validity does 
not aj)|)t'ar to have (•^)uni before the ])arlies.' The mere fact 
that a ijiaii may lia\e hcai'd iiiit'avoralilf nimoi's, and con- 
ceived suspicions, is not enough to lix him with acquiescence.' 
The proof of knowledge lies on the party who alleges acquies- 
cence, and sets it up as a defence.' If the transaction has 
taken phice under ])ressurc, or the exercise of undue influence, 
it must clearly and unequivocally appear that the party 
against whom acquiescence is alleged was sui juris., and was 
released from the influence or the pressure under wliicli he 
stood at the time of the transaction, and acted freely and ad- 
visedly in abstaining from impeaching it. Acquiescence goes 
for nothing so long as a man continues in the same situation 
in which he was at the date of the transaction.* But as soon 
as a man with full knowledge, or at least with sufKcient notice 
or means of knowledge, of his rights, and of all the material 
circumstances of the case, freely and advisedly does anything 
which amounts to the recognition of a ti-ansaction, or acts in a 
manner inconsistent with its repudiation, or lies l)y for a 
considerable time, and knowingly and deliberately permits 
another to deal with the property, or incur expense, under the 
belief that the transaction has been recognized, or freely and 

F. it J. 617 : Life Association of Scot- 3 D. F. A J. 58; Wall v. Cockerell, 10 
land I'. Siiiilall, \i 1). F. it J. 74; Bui- II. L. 229; Spademan's Ca^e, 34 L. J. 
lock V. Downcs, 9 H. L. 1 ; Wall v. Cli. 329. 

Cockerull, 10 II. L. 229; Bcrdoe v. * Gowland v. De Faria, 17 Ves 25; 

Dawson, 34 I>oav. 003; Vyvyan v. Groirory v. Gregory, Coop. 201 ; Roche 

Vyvj-nn, 30 Beav. 65; Spackman's t-. O'Brien, 1 B. ifc B. 3oS ; Ayhvard v. 

Case, 34 L. J. Ch. 329 ; Stewart's Case, Kearney, 2 B. <t B. 463 ; I'aliner v. 

L. R. 1 Ch. App. 514 ; xiipm, p. l:i2. AVlieeler, ib. 31 ; Ilonncr v. Morton. 3 

' Ilonner i'. Morton. 3 Kuss. 65; Russ. 65 ; Duke of Leeds r. Lord Am- 

Wrigljtv. Vanderplank, 8 D. M. <t G. herst, 2 I'll. 117; Addis r. Campbell. 4 

133. See Baker v. Bradley, 7 D. M. <fe Beav. 401 ; Roberts v. Tunstall, 4 Ha. 

G. 597. 257 ; Salmon v. Cutts, 4 Dei,'. & Sm. 
* Central Railwaj' Co. of Venezuela r. 132; Wright v. Vanderplank, 8 D. >L 

Kisch. L. R. 2 App. Ca. 112. <fe G. 133; Evre i-. M'I>..nnell, 15 Ir. 

' Bennett v. Cllev, 2 M. & K. 225; Ch. 534; Bcrdoe v. Dawson, 34 Beav. 

Bnrrows v. Walls, 5' D. M. it (i. 233; 6n3. 
Life Association of Scotland c. Siddall, 



;;()•_• LOSS (U KU.lir 'lO IMl'l.ACIl 

advisedly ab^^tnins lor a c.iiisiili'raMr lujisr <il" tiiiio from iiii- 
poadiini; it, lluTi' is !U'i|uiescenct', and tlio transaction, altlion<;li 
ori«;inally iinju'arlialiU', ln'Cdnics uniinpcaclialtU- in Lvjuity.* If, 
for instance, a man attcr discovcrin;^ tliat the rei>rescntations 
in a prospectus, on the faith of whicli he has }»urchased shares 
are false, deals with the shares as (twner, hy instructin<; a 
hrokcr to srll tlHiii,'^ or c<iiuui.> in the appcintiMent of a 
committee ut iiive.-tii^atioii inti> tlie atlairs of the company 
on behalf of the shareiiulders,^ there is ac(piiescence. S»> 
■where a party, with full knowledge of the misrepresentations 
alleged to have been made, by his conduct agrees to treat the 
transaction as binding, he is prccludetl in e<|uity from insisting 
un the luisreprcsentation in a suit fur specific perfornumce.* 
And where plaintilVs sought to avoid an agreement for the 
lease of a mine, on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation 
of its value, it was held that having continued to work the 
mine after full knowledge of all the circumstances of the fraud, 
they were not entitled to relief.' 

The e(iuitable rule as to acquiescence apjdies Mith peculiar 
force to the ciise of property which is of a speculative charac- 
ter, or is subject to contingencies, and can only be rendered 
productive by a large and uncertain outlay.* 

' SflRcy f. Rbodoo. 1 Bli-ili, N. S. 1; Mfmslry, :U I,. J. Cli. nin ; Ernest r. 

PoUew V. UiiHPt'll. 1 Ha. A. He. Jul; \iviiml ;t.{ L. J. Ch. Mil; Wall .. 

BIiniKTha«8(tt v. Day, '-' Ha. A He 118; Cuckerell. :i D. V. A .1. 712. 
VijrerH r. I'ike. « C'l.'iV Fin. r..'.'J ; riinr- '' Jw-inirU \W\\i\:r^, \.. K. 1 l'<|. 4S;i. 

UtV Trevelyan, 11 ("1. it Finn. 711 ; ' Lawrence's I'ase, L. U. 2 L'h. Ajip. 

I Iinrniiion v. Ki-jhv, Taml. 121, It L. .1. 421. 

«'li. N. S. 211; .Madin v. VecverH, r. * .Macliryde r. Weekofl. 22 Henv. RS3. 

Heav. Ml; Nm;:1<- i-. Haylnr. !! l»r. A * Vii^er.s" r. I'ike. S I'l. it Finn. 502. 

War. ''•<•; KilwartN v. .Mi-vriek. 2 Hh. "Norway v. Kowe, lit Ve«. HI; 

75; Loacl<T r. ('lark. 2 Mae. A- (J. .'is? ; Small r. Atlwix.il, fi ("1. tt Finn. 2:12. 

Stone r. (Joilfrev, 5 I). M. tt («. 70; 359; rrenileri;a8t r. Turt<>n, 1 Y. A C. 

Lv<l(lun I'. M<>M."4 I>. A- .1. H»»; IMniB- C C m, l.'l L. .1. V\\. 208; Lovoll r. 

<lalo V. Itiinmlai'-. .'{ I»nw. 5.'i0 ; Far- Ilieki*. 2 Y. «t ('. 40; .lenninjjrs r. 

rant r. Hlan. hfor.l, 1 I>. J. tl S. lo?; Hr.-nirliton. 5 H. M. A IS. lUi; lie;:!: 

Arclibolil I'. .Sillily, I' 11. L. :»>(». See i'. KtirimnilHon. s ]). M. A (J. 7s7 ; 

ri<-nilcil<atli V. Frnoer. :i V. A H. 174; Clt'iiKiitt e Hall. 2 1>. it .1. 17."t; (Sros- 

l;<rnnl r. I.onl I»')ne;.'al. :« I)<.\v. l:i:{; veimr r. sliiTrall. 2S H.mv. 0.')'.t; Whnl. 

Havnc »' FergUHon. 5 \htvi. 151; Pear- ley v. Wlialhy, 2 1). F. A J. UK). 
BOn r. IV'iiw^ri, 28 Bcav. !<W ; (ire^ley v. 



ON Tin; (iKol Nl) OF rUAlI). I'AY.j 

Tilt' i-L>{)rescntatives ol :i man win* lias acijuic.sccd in a 
])arti(ular transact iun, cannKl he in a bt-ttor jx^nition than the 
man liinisi-ll'.^ 

So, also, niav a rt-niaiiuici'-nian l>c bnuiid \>y ac<[uiesoc'nce.^ 
Jiut there is no aci|nies('ence, il tlic rcniaiii<lfr-nian arts in a 
transaction merely as an attorney of the tenant lor lit'e.^ 

The doctrine of ac(|uicseenco applies even as between 
trustee and cestui que tnist, even in cases of exi)ress trusts.* 
A cestui (jue trust, -whose interest is reversionary, though not 
bound to assert his title until he conies into possession, is not 
less capable of liivini; his assent to a breach of trust while 
tlie interest is in reversion, than when it is in possession. 
AVhetj^er lie has done so or not depends on the facts of each 
j)articular case.' 

DELAY AND LAPSE OF TDUE. 
The mere lapse of time during which a transaction has 
been allowed to stand, may render it im impeachable in equity. 
A man Avho seeks the aid of a court of c<piity, must assert his 
claim with reasonable diligence.* * It is a rule of equity not 
to encourage stale demands, or give relief to parties M'ho sleep 
on their rights. Tlie rule is founded on the difficulty of pro- 

' Walmcsloy >•, Booth, 2 Atk. 25 ; ' Life Association of Scotland v, Sid- 

Bellew V. Russell, 1 Ba. «fe Be.' 96. dall, 3 I). F. it J. 58, 73. 

» Shannon i'. Bradstrect, 1 Sch. <fe ' Smith r. I'lay. cit. 3 Bro. C. C. 639 ; 

Lof. 73. Jones v. Turberville, 2 Vcs. Jr. 11; 

' Lifliman v. ILircnurt, 2 Mer. 520. llcrcy r. DinwoDily, '/'. 87; Underwood 

* Wiilker V. Symonds. 3 Sw. CA, 75; v. Lord CourtDwn, 2 Sch. & Lcf. 71; 

liurrowd >: Walls, .") 1). .M. <S: <}. •lo'i; Iliikes r. Cooke, 4 l)ow. IG; Ciialmer 

Farranl v. Blaucliford, 1 D. J. it S. v. Bradl.y. 1 J. A W. 59 ; Walford t-. 

107. Adie, 5 lla. 112. 



« 



* Piatt V. Vatticr, 9 Pet. 40."); s. c. 1 McLean, 40; Lupton r. Janncy, 13 
Pot. 381; "Wa'le i\ Pettibone, 11 Ohio, 537; s. c. 14 Ohio, 557 ; :\IcLcan r. 
Barton, Earring. Ch. 279; Badger r. Badger, 2 Wall. 87; llawley v. 
Cramer. 4 Cow. 717 ; Coleman v. Lyno, 4 Rand. 454 ;John*on r. Johnson, 5 
Ala. 90 ; Graham r. Davidson, 2 Dev. i!c Bat. Eij. 155 ; Mclvuight r. Taylor, ) 
Uow. IGl ; Jenkins r. Pye, 12 Pet. 241. 



901 LOSS 111' KiciiT 1(1 iMi'r.Acir 

curing full ovidi'iu'o o( tlu* character and particulars of remote 
t ran (Mictions, ami is iM<li']uii<lfiit of the Statute of Liuiita- 
tions.'* In the ea-e of lei^^il titles ami lei^al deuiauds, courts 
of equity aet in oliedienee tu the Statutes of Limitations ;' f 
but if the demand is nt»t of a lei^al nature, or is strictly ecjuit- 
able, the Statiites of Limitations are not a har in e<juity. 
Courts of et[uity, however, lo(.»k to tlu-m as guides,' and 
assimilate their rules as far as tliey can, and as far as the trans- 
actions will admit, to the law.*;}: Where a bar exists by 
statute, c(|uity will, in analo:;i>us cases, consider the ecjuitablo 
rights as bound by the same limitations ;*§ but in cases where 
the analoijies of law do not apjdy, a court of equity is 
governed by its own inherent doctrine not to encourage stale 
demands. Parties who would have had the clearest title to 

' Ilovendcn v. Lord Anncslcv, 2 Sch. ' Ilovcndoii v. Lord Anneslpj*. 2Sch. 

•It Lcf. C:{t>; IJeokford i: Wmle" 17 Ves. A Lef. r>:fl ; Fok-y >: Hill, 1 I'h". 899. 

h7; Chalmcr r. Hradk-y, 1 J. it W. f.;{ ; " llainilton v. "(Irunt, H Dow. 33; 

Hiikcs >: Cooke. 4 Dow. lt> ; Untulitre Wlialloy i'. Whalk-y, 3 Bliijh, 17. 

r. I'arkiiis, ti Dow. 1 1'.', 2:'.2 ; Wliaik-y * Cholmoiuk-iiy v. t'linton, 4 Bligh, 

r. Wlialiev, 3 Kli;;li. 17; Ci»<ilinoiulr!i'y 1,95; Brooksbuiik r. Siiiitli, 2 Y. «t C. 

r. Cliiiton" 4 hii-li, 119 ; Sil.berintr r. CO. 

Earl of Uak-arrcs. 3 De^'. it .S. 7;i.'. ; ' Smith c. Clay, cit. 3 Bro. C. C. 639; 

Browne I'. Cross, 1-1 lieav. lO'i; llarl- lloveiiden v. Lord Annealey, 2 Sch. A 

well r. Coiviii, 111 IJeav. 1 »<i; Beaden .'. Lcf. 1107, f,:,2; Wlialhy i'. "Whallcy, 8 

Kins, 9 Ha. r>:;2 ; Kidi;ht c Bowycr, 2 Bii>;Ii, 17; ( liolinoiuk'fcy r. Clinton, 4 

D. «k J. 421. 443; (Jresley r. Mousley, Blii,'!!, 1, 119; Sihberinj^ )■. Karl of Bnl- 

4 D. «k J. 7S; Harc(jurt r. White, 28 carre.s. 3 De;j. it S. 73r>; Duke of Leeds 

Beav. 312; Skoltowo v. Williams, 3 D. v. Lord Amherst, 2 I'h. 117. 
F. dj J. 635. 



* Provost r. Gratz, Wheat. 481 ; Randolph r. Ware, :J Crunch, 503; 
JVeatherfonl r. Tale. 2 Strobli. Eq. 27; Peacock r. Black, lllalst.Ch. 535; 
'.] Green'sCh.Ol ; Bon<l r. Brown. 1 Harp. Cli. 270; Pajje r. Booth, 1 Hob. 
101 ; Ludlow r. Cooper, \.l Oliio. 5.")2 ; Uraham r. Torriancc, 1 Ireil. Eq. 
210; Shearin i. Katon. 2 Ired. i:.|. '2H'2. 

t'Peyton r. Stith, .". Pet. -iH.-j ; Iliuuhtrt r. Trinity Chnn li, 7 I'ai^''. lO"*; 
B. c. 24 Wend. 587; Hawley r. Cramer, 4 Cow. 747, 

I Kane r. Blooil^oo.!, 7 Johns. Cli. llO; Elmendorf r. Taylor. 10 Wheat. 
ir)2; Hunt r. WicklilTe, 2 Pet. 201; Varliek r. E<lwanls, 1 HolV. Clk 

382. 

§.Mi(h(Mi.| r. (;iro<l, J lIow.oiKi; Miller r. McIntyre.O Pet. 01 ; Bowman 
c. Wutben, 1 How. 18U; Perkins p. Curtmell, 1 Ilarring. 270. 



ON Tin: cuoLND OF riJAUD. 3()r» 

relief, liad they come in reasoiiahlc time, may deprive them- 
selves (»f their eqiiity hy a dehiy wliich falls sliort of the ])eriod 
fixed by the statutes.' Lapse of time, when it does not operate 
as a positive or statutory bar, operates in ecjuity as an evidence 
of assent, ac(pii(.'SL'ence, or -waiver.'^ The two propositions of 
bar by length of time, and bar by acquiescence, are not dis- 
tinct propositions. They constitute but one proposition.^ 
Accpiicscence, however, as distinguished from delay, imports 
conduct.^ 

The rule that a man who sleeps on his rights cannot come 
to a court of equity for relief, holds good not only in circum- 
stances where the length of time would render it extremely 
difficidt to ascertain the true state of the fact, but where the 
true state of the tact is easily ascertained, and where it is 
perfectly clear that relief would have been given had there 
been no delay.' 

No precise or defined limit of time can be stated within 
which the interposition of the court must be sought. "What 
is a reasonable time cannot well be deiined so as to establish 
any general rule, aud must in a great measure depend upon 
the exercise of the sound discretion of the court under all the 
circumstances of each particular case.® * In Gregory v. 

•Oliver V. Court, 8 Pri. 167. 1<>8; Wcntworth v. Lloyd. ."2 Bear. 4C7; 

GreE;ory i'. (lroc;<>ry, Cooj). "iitl ; llickes Dowius c. Jenninixs, ib. i'M). 

II. Cooke, 4 Dow. lO ; Wlialley c. Wlial- » rickeriiiij v. Lord Sfamford, 2 Ves. 

lev, 3 Hliijh, 17 ; ClioliuoiitlcK-y r. Cliii- Jr. 583; (ireirory i: Greijorv, Coop, 

ton. 4 Bli-li. 1, i'.'' ; Champion r. Ui?:l)V, 201; Whalley f. *Whallpv,'"3 hligh. 1, 

9L. J. Ch. N. y. 211; bibberini; »'. Earl 13; Roberts v. Tunstali. 4 Ila. 2r.7 ; 

of Balcarres, 3 De*;. <fe ^^. 735; Roberts Life Association of Scotland r. .siJilall, 

V. Tunstall. 4 lla. 257 ; Browne v. Cross, 3 1). F. «L- J. 73. See Stewart's Case, 

14 Beav. luG ; Hartwell v. Colvin, 10 L. R 1 Ch. App. 513. 

Bcav. 140; Baker ;■. Read, 18 Beav. ' Life Association of Scotland r. Sid- 

898; Wright v. Vanderplank, 8 I). M. dall, 3 I). F. it J. IS, per Turner, L.J. 

A G. 133; Grcsley i'. Mousley, 4 I), ifc * Lyddon i: Moss, 4 D. AJ. lot. .See 

J. 78; Lyddon >: Moss, ib. 104 ; liar- Murray r. Rainier, 2 Seh. «fc Lef. 486; 

court r. White, 28 Beav. 312 ; Cleg^j v. Archl/old v. Scully, 9 H. L. 360. 

Edniondson, 8 D. M. & G. 810; Clan- " Beekford v. W'ade, 17 Ves. 87, 97. 

ricardo v. Uenning, SO Beav. 175; * Gresle}' v. Mousley, 4 D. «t J. 78. 



♦ Hawley r. Cramer, 4 Cow. 717 ; Banks r. Jutlah, 8 Ct. 14>; Uallctt c. 



rjOC Ldss or incur to imim.aoii 

Grcirorv* Sir W. (ir:int. M. li., nfuMd to set aside ii imrchaso 
]>y a trustee atU'r a lapse of eigliteeii years. So in Selsey v. 
Khoades,' where a lease was «;ranted to a steward, and eleven 
years had ehi]>sed, the court refused to set the lease aside, 
thoui^h there were special circumstances in the case. So in 
I'aker v. Keed,' a bill liled after the lapse of seventeen years, 
to set aside a purclj:i>e of a testators estate hy his executor 
at an undervalue, was dismissed on tlie'irround of <le]ay.* The 
question as to delay may be much allected by reference to the 
nature of the i>roperty,' or to the change of circumstances as 
to the character or value of the property in the intermediate 
period.'* A (U'lay wliit-li inii^ht have been of no consequence 
in an ordinary case, may be amply sufficient to bar the title of 
relief, when the property is of a speculative character, or is 
subject to contingencies,' or where the rights and liabilities of 
others liavo bi'cii in the meantime varied.^ If the pro])erty is 
of a speculative or precarious nature, it is the duty of a man 
complaining of fraud to put forward liis complaint at the 

' Coop. 201. Vl'^rr t-. Eilmondson, ib. 807 ; Ernest t: 

» 2 Sill), d: St. 41 ; 1 Bligh, N. S. 1. Vivian. :>:{ L. J. t'li. 51:5. 

» 18 IJiMV. :J'J8. . * llickts r. Cixiko. 4 Dow. \C>; Wcnt- 

* See I'urcell r. Mncnnmnra. 14 Ves. wortli r. l.loyd, '.V2 Hi-av. 407 ; Uidgwuy 

91 ; Oliver v. Court, H IVi. 127 ; Molony v. Newsteail, :{ 1). F. it .1. 474. 

V. UEstrango. Beat. Un; ; (;illi-tt i-. I'tp- ' Attwooil c. Siiiall. CI, »t Fin. 232, 

IHTtorn. a lleav. 7n ; li-iburts >•. Tun- Sri7 ; Wnlford r. Adic. 6 Ha. 112; 

stall. 4 llu. 2.'.7 ; Matliew r. Jirise, 14 I'renderu'a.-^t r. Turton, 1 Y. tt C. C. C. 

li.uv. ai:!; Asipianc; r. Wutto, 20 Ik-av. 'JS ; Ki L. J. Cli 2i".S ; Cleg'.; v. Eilmond- 

48(t; Allfrev «'. Allfivv, 1 Mac. «t (J. son, SD. M. it (J. 7S7 ; Clements t". Hall, 

S7; IJarwcIl i: IJarwell, :i4 Ikav. :i71 ; 2 D. A J. 173; Ernest v. Vivian, 33 L. 

I'olts V. Surr, il>. r»43 ; I'roctor i'. Uol/in- J. Ch. 513. 

son, 3.'> lleav. XiTi. ' lUdgwav v. Newstoad, 3 1). 1'. it .1. 

•'Hul< h V. Hatch. 9 Ve". 2'.»2 ; Wriijlit 474. See lliekes r. Cooke, 4 Dow. 1(1 ; 

r. Vanderi.laiik, 8 I), il. & G. 133 ; Tolta v. Surr, 34 Leav. 643. 



CdIHiih, 10 now. 174 ; Michoiul r. Girod, 4 ITow. 503 ; Boone r. Chiles. 10 
IVt. 177; Cf.uNon r. Wiiltdii. 1) Pet. 02; Kiiif? r. Morlonl, Saxion, 274 ; 
Aviott r. Kinj;, 1 1 Leij,'h, 4H0 ; NcIhoii r. CarriiiKton, 4 Miinf. :1:12 ; Heunlon 
r. Bcuvy, 1 Litt. 5:1; Olwrt r. Olurt, 1 IJeashy. 42:i. 

♦ Wn^nier r. Hainl, 7 How. 2;J4 ; Smith r. ThoinpHon, 7 H. Mon. 305 
Carroll r. Hicf, 1 Walkcr'H Cb. :i7:) ; MDouald r. Ncilson, 2 Cow. 130; 
FcrwJD r. Sanger, Davies, 252. 



ON Tin: cuoLM) or fuald. .'i07 

earliest possible time' lie cannot he allowed to remain 
passive, prepared to afHrm tlie transaction if the concern 
slioiiM prosper, or to repudiate it if tliat should prove to his 
advantai^a*.'^* Parties who are in the position of sharehohlers 
in eonjpanies must, if they come t<j the court to Ite relea.-c d 
from their shares on the ground of fraud, come with the 
utmost diligence and promptitude.' In the case of companies 
formed under the Companies' Act, 18^.2, persons who ai)i)ly 
for shares on the faith of a prospectus, are hound to ascertain 
at the earliest possible moment whether the memorandum and 
articles of association are in accordance with the prospectus. 
If they fail to do so, and the objects of the company are 
extended beyond those descriljed in the prospectus, the persons 
who have so taken shares on the faith of the prospectus will be 
held bound by acquiescence.'' 

The (piestion as to delay may be also materially affected 
by reference to the relation whicirsubsists between the ]jarties. 
If, for instance, the transaction be between solicitor and client, 
a delay which wouUl l»e fatal in other cases may be permitted, 
for the solicitor must know tliat the onus of supporting the 
transaction will rest on him, and that, if he desire it to be 
upheld, he must preserve the evidence which will be required 
to uphold it.' 

The rules of the court as to lapse of tim.e being a bar in 

' Jcnninirs v. Brou£jhton, 5 D. M. <fc Co. of Venezuela v. Kisch, L. R. 2 Ai)p. 

G, 12G: Ernest V. Vivian, 33 L. J. Ch. Ca. 125. 

513. * Peel's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. CS4 ; 

» Wnlford v. Adie, 5 Ila. 112; Pren- Oakes i-. Turquniul, L. R. 2 App. Ca. 

dcr"-ast V. Tiirton, 13 L.J. Ch. 2G8 ; 352, ;>ec Lord Chehnsford. 

Cowc-U V. \Va«s, 19 L.J. Ch. 455 ; Law- ' Grosley v. Mou-^ley, 4 D. &. J. TS. 

rente's Case, L. R. 2 Cli. App. 425. See M'DoiiaM v. M'Donald. 1 Blitrh, 

'Reese River Silver Miiiini; Co., 315; Mor-;an r. Lewes, 4 Dow. 20. 45; 

Sniitli's Case, L. R. 2 Ch App. 013 ; Cluunpion v. Ri^rby, '.» L. J. Ch. X. S. 

Denton v. Macneil, L. R. 2 Eq. 352; 211; Allirey v. AllfP'V. 1 .Mac. A- (J. 87. 

Taifes' Case, L. R. 3 Eq. 7'.»5 ; White- Conip. LydJon v. Moss, 4 D. «fc J. 104. 
house's Case, «6. 794 ; Central Railway 

* Banks r. Judah, 8 Ct. 145; Pintard r. Mariin, 1 Smed. & ^lar. IQO; 
Rogers c. Saunders, 1 8 Me. 94. 



.■>0S LOSS or incur to nirrAcii 

t'(|uity, apjily to /.\<va of miistnu'tivc trii>t,' "^ imd even to 
transactions hetworii trustee ami (r.sfui <ju> trust in respect of 
the trnst estate,' ns well as to onlinarv transactions. Len«^th 
of time can, however, have no ellcct hetween trustee and 
cefitui tjuv fnifit, exce])t the trusts aro ])ro])erly executed.' 
There is a wi<k' distinction between trusts whicii aro actual 
and express, and constructivi- trusts. A trust l»y which a man 
nndcrtakes to hold and api>1y ]>roperty lor the benefit of 
another is widely different from the case of ownership, subject 
to the claims of another, if he thiid<s proper to enforce it.* 
In tlie case of coiitiniiinir express trusts, created liy act of 
parties, no time is a bar, for from the privity existing between 
the jvirties, the possession of the one is the ]>ossession of the 
other, and there is no adverse title.' f Xor is length of time a 



' Iloventlcn v. Ix>nl Annosley, 2Sch. * Toft i'. Stoiihenson, 7 Ha. 15. 
A Lcf. ii.i-i; H<'cl<forcl v. Wntlei 17 Ves. ' t'liolmomk-loy v. ( linton, 4 Bligh, 
y7; Kzp'irtc HisoU, 3 Y. d: C. f>l7; 1 ; WfiliUrlnirn i-. WoiliiiThurn. 2Kcen, 
C\t'<rfr V. Kdinoii(l-on, 8 D. M. «t G. 787 ; 7 1'.>. 4 M. <k C. 41 ; Kiiii^'lit i-. Bowyer, 
CIanri?.irfle f. llciiiiing. 'M) Beiiv. 180. 2 D. «t J. 121. lis ; C'laiuk-nnlo v. Hen- 
See l{ol:e V. (ir.'fjory, 34 L. J. ( li. 275. nins:, 3'> Iic-:iv. 175. See .\tt.-Gen. v. 

' (Jretjory v. (;rr;;<)ry, ("<»ip. 'jnl ; Fislmumi^ers' Co., 5 M. it (". 1<>; Life 

llcjlHTts r. Tunstjill, 4 Ha. 'J.'>7 ; Baker As-oeiation of^entland «-. SuUliU, 3 F. 

V. Held. IN Keuv. .•;'.i8 ; Burwell i-. Bar- tt .1. 5S, 73; M'Domicll i-. White. 11 II. 

well. 34 Btav. 371 ; but see Siuitli r. L. 57<». See Fruaks v. Bollaas, 37 L. 

Bakes. 'JU Beuv. 508. J. fh. 155. 

•Fruuks V. Bullans, 37 L. J. C'li. 15.'). 



• Furniira v. Brooks, Pick. 212; Boone v. Chiles, 10 Pit. 177; El- 
mcndorf r. Tuylor, 10 Wheat. 102; Beaubien r. Bcaubien, 23 How. 190; 
Tiitc r. Connor, 2 Dev. Kq. 224 ; Locke v. Arnistroni,', 2 Dev. A: Bat. Eq. 
247. 

t Miclioticl r. Ginul, 4 How. ."»();]; Seymour r. Freer. 8 Wall. 202; Dc- 
couche r. Swetier, '•'> Johns. Ch. lUO; Cook r. Williams, 1 Green's Ch. 200; 
Btatc r. Mc(fOwen, 2 Ireil. Eq. 9 ; Pinson r. Ivcy, 1 Yerpf. 290 ; Lexington 
r. Lindsay, 2 A. K. Marnh. 4l:j; Lindsay r. Lindsay, 1 Dessau. I."i0. 

Limitations lii-^in to run a^'ainst a trust only from the time when i( is 
openly disavowed by the trustee, who insists upon an adverse ri^ht and 
interest, whieij is fully ami une<|uivoeaIly made known to tiie ctxtiii que 
trust. Oliver e. Piatt. :{ How. '.iX\ ; Kane r. Bloodj,'ood, 7 .Johns. Ch. 90; 
Boone c. Chiles, 10 Pet. 90; Taylor c. Benhum, 5 How. 2:53; Wader. 
Green, :J Humph. 547. 



ON Till; <iU<)l Nl> HI' FKAJ 1). 3fM) 

bar wlicre a deht lias acrnied in coriKequcnce of a vi(»liitiuii of 
coniidi'iico be.stowx'd in a iiiluciary character.* JJiit if the trust, 
thoiio'li exi)res.s, l)c not continuouH, and the case he one of ^ross 
laches, tlic general niK- (•fciiuit y, that ('ii('oiira,:;-('iiiL;iit is nut to 
be given to stale (Icniands, is c<|uall_v a[)|ilical»lc.- 

If tliere be hiches on hnlli si<h'S, the ordinary rules as to 
dehiy and accpiiescence may not a[)ply.^ 

Time, liowever, does not begin to run against a man in 
cases of fraud, imtil he has knowledge of the fraud. Time be- 
gins to run only from the discovery.** The Statute of Limita- 
tions is no bar in equity in cases of fraud.'' The right of the 
party defrauded is not aliected by lapse of time, or, generally 
speaking, by anything done or omitted to be done, so long as 
he remains, ^vithout any fault of his own, in ignorance of the 
fraud that has been committed." Lapse of time imputed as 



' Teed v. Bccrc, .5 Jivr. N. S. 381. Ph. 3G0 ; Allfrey v. AUfrey, 1 Man. <fe 

" Brij^ht V. I.eiroitoii, 2 D. F. A .T. J. 99; Walsliam v. Sliiinton, 1 D. J. <b 

60fi. See M'Douiicll i>. White, 11 11. G. <)78; He lieese Silver Minin"^ Co., 

L. 570. Sinitli'rt Ca.<e, L H. 2 Ch. App. 013. 

' Hicks V. Mornnt, 2 Dow & CI. 414. " St,iir-;i.s v. Morse, 24 Ileav. .'J41. 

* Bleniierhasset r. Day. 2 Bn. &. Be. " llolfe ;■. Gregory, 8t L. J. Ch. 27o 

129; Blair v. Bromley,' 5 Ila. 559, 2 See AUfrey v. Allfrey, 1 Mac. & G. 99. 



♦Veazie r. Williams, 8 How. 134 ; Wamburzce i;. Kennedy, 4 Dessau. 
474; Longworth v. Hunt, 11 Ohio St. R. 194; Pendleton r. Galloway, 9 
Ohio, 178; Haywood r. JIarsh, 6 Yerg. 69; Harrell v. Kelly, 2 ]\IeCord. 
426; Huston v. Cantril, 11 Leigh, 136; Eigleberi,aT r. Kiblcr. 1 Hill's Ch. 
113; Steele r. Kinkle, 3 Ala. 3.j'3. 

No case can he found in which a court of equity has refused to give 
relief within the lifetime of either of the parties upon whom the fraud i.s 
proved, or within thirty years after it has been discovered, or becomes 
known to the party whose rights are affected. Michaud v. Girod, 4 How. 
503. 

The rule only applies where the trust is clearly established, and where 
the facts have been fraudulently and successfully concealed by the trustee 
from the centiii que trust. Badger r. Badger, 2 Wall. 87. 

Where a party liy his own fraudulent acts and representations has al- 
layed all reasonable suspicion of his original fraud, and thus attempted to 
obtain an unconscious advantage by the lapse of time, a court of equity 



310 LOSS <»K Kiciir ro imi'i.acii 

Inches iiiav l»o excused Ity tlio obsciirity of the transaction, 
wlierehv a man is disuhled iVi'iii nhtaiiiinij lull iiil'nrniatioii of 
his riirhts.' Time (hies not lie-in to run aLrainst a man, so as 
to har the remi'dy, until he has full information of his rii^hts 
and injuries,'* or has in his possession tlio means of knowl- 

' Murray f. rnlmcr. 2 Scli. <t Lof. v. (l.nrlor, 4 L. J. *li. N. S. 209; 

48rt. " Cliarlcr r, Trcvdvun, 11 i I. it Fin. 

»Snlkilcl V. Vernon. 1 Kd-n. r.4 ; 711; IJrowne i-. Cioss. H IJonv. InC; 

Pl.MimrliiKsot I. l»iiv, 2 Ha. ct !><•. ini. Tnrkcr r. lUoxmn. 20 Hcav. 205; 

Hit; Whall.v I'. NViiallov. :» Uliu'li. 1 ; Savory r. King, 5 II. L. 627. 
O'Neill r. llnmili, lieat. GI8 ; Trevclyan 



will (lisrcpinl the statute of limitiitions. Phalen r. Clark, 19 Ct. 421; 
McClurc r. Ashl.y, 7 Rich. Eq. 430. 

Where there is a separate and distinct chancery jiirisdiclion. the ques- 
tion of fraud as a means of preventini; the eflVct and operation of Ibo 
statute of limitations must be referred to that jurisdiction, and is not to 
1)C relied on by way of replication to the plea of tlie statute in a court of 
law. Franklin r. Waters, « Gill, 322. 

Fraud can not be replied to a plea of the statute of limitations in a 
court of law. Troupe r. Smith, 20 Johns. 3'-5 ; Leonard r. Pitney, 5 Wend. 
30; Callis r. Waddy, 2 Munf. 511 ; Rice r. White, 4 Lei,<rli. 474 ; Miles r. 
Barry, 1 Ilill (S. C), 29G ; Hamilton r. Smith, 3 Murph. IIJ; Kuddick v, 
Leggatt, 3 Murph. 539; IJaines r. Williams, 3 Irid. 481; Fianklin r. 
Waters, 8 Gill, 322; Smith v. Bishop. 9 Vt. 110; Lewis r. Houston, 11 
Tex. 042 ; Campbell r. Vining, 23 HI. 523 ; Way v. Cutting, 20 N. H. 187 ; 
Duvall V. Stafford, 4 Bilib, 318. Contra, Ma.ss. Turnpike Co. r. Field, 3 
Mas<. 201; Livermorc r. .Johnson, 27 Miss. 284; Cole r. :M(Glathry, 
Gre«nl. 131 ; .Tones r. Conoway, 4 Yeatcs, 109 ; Ilarrisburg Bank r. Foster, 
8 Watts, 12; lUicker r. Lightner, 40 Penn. 139; P^aymond r. Simonson, 4 
Blackf. 85; Mitchell f. Thompson, 1 McLean, 85 ; Slurwoixl r. Sutton, 5 
Mason. 143; Cocke r. M'Glnniss, 1 Mart. & Ycrg, 301; Fee r Fee, 10 Ohio, 
400; Convers r. Kenans, 4 Geo. 308; Persons r. Jones, 12 Geo. 3T1 , Hsu-- 
rcll r. Kelly, 2 McCord, 20. 

The fraud that will be sunicitnt to remove the bar of the statute of 
limitations must be actual, not constructive fraud. Farnani r. Brooks, 9 

Pick. 212. 

Tin- phiintifTcan not excuse his negligence by the fact that the defend- 
ant kniw all along lluit he was in the wrong. Whatever the character of 
the injun,-, and wht tlier n.mmitted in good or bad faith, the statute bases 
itself on time. Humbert r. Trinity Church, 7 Paige, r.»5; 8. r. 24 Wend. 

587. 

* Munson r. Hallowell 27 Tex. 457; Tate, >, Tair. 1 Dcv.«k Bat. i:.|. 22; 

Crofl r. Arthur, 3 Dessau. 223. 



ON TIIK GROUND (M' IKAI I). 



311 



edge,' * or, ;if least, hiia Bullieieiit notice t(» ))iit Iiim on in- 
quirv,'+ ainl, in cases ^vhcre the transaction lias taken ]»lace 
nmlci' |>ressiire, or tlie exercise of untlue iiifliiciice, in eniaiK-i- 
jiatcd troni llie dominion under wliicli Ik; htood at llic date of 
the transaction.^ The ohjection of time is removed, so long as 
a man remains, without any fault of his own, in ignorance of 
his rights and injuries,* or is under a legal disahiiity,':}: or so 
lonsr fvs the dominion or uiidm^ iiilhiciice which vitiated tlie 
transaction is in full force/' The mere fact, however, of tlie 
poverty or pecuniary emharrassment of the injured or de- 
frauded party, is not a sufficient excuse for delay ;'§ nor will 
the mere notice or assertion of a claim, unaccompanied by 



> Bnkcr v. Rend, 3 W. R. US. 

'Clnnricnrdc c. Ilenninsr, 30 Boav. 
lYr); Spaekinan's Case, 31 L. J. ("h. 
821, 3'2('. ; Stanhope's Case, L R, 1 Cli. 
App. liil. See Dnirjett ». Enu-rson, 3 
Story (Amcr.), 733; Comp. I'artridije 
t'. Usboriu'. r> Rns9. lOr), '232; Re Reese 
River Silver Miiiinjj Co , Smitli'a Case, 
L. R. 2Cli. App. f.l2. 

'Gregory ''. Oreijorv. Coon. 201; 
Dawson v.' Massev.'l B. A B. 210; 
Roche »•. O'Brien, 'ih. 33S ; Avlwiird r. 
K'earnev, 2 B. .t B. 4f.8 ; 6'Noili v. 
llaiuill," Heat. 618; Addis v. Cami-hcll, 
4 Beav. 401 ; Clianipion v. Rigbv, L. 
J. Ch. N. S. 211 ; Bellamy v. Sahine. 2 
Ph. 423; Grosvenor v. Sherratt, 2S 
lk>av. 659; Sharp f. Leach, 31 Be.av. 
401. 

* Trevelvan v. Charter, 4 L. J. Ch. 
N. S. 209;"Chartcr r. Trevelyan, 11 CI. 



<t Fin. 711; Allfrev v. AUfrev. 1 Mac. 
<k G. 87; Bromley v. Blair,' 16 L.J. 
Ch. 108; Mathew v. BvUe, 14 Beav. 
343 ; Rolfe v. Greerory, V.l L. J. Ch. 
275 ; Spackman's Case, ih. 320 ; Stan- 
hope's Ca«e, L. R. 1 Ch. A p. 101. 

* Diiko of L eds v. Lord Arahersf , 2 
Ph. 117; Neesom v. Clark^on, 2 Ha. 
163; Wright v. Vanderplank, 8 D. M. 
<fe G. 133 ; Gresley v. ilousley, 4 D. »fc 
J. 78. 

• Wright V. Vanderplank, 8 D. M. A 
G. 133; Gresley .•. Moiii^lcy, 4 D. & J. 
7S; Sharp >: Leach, 31 Beav. 401. See 
Gregory v. Greixory. Cor.p. 201 ; Addis 
J'. Caini)l)ell, 4 Beav. 4<il. 

' Roberts r. Tunstall. 4 Ha. 257; 
Champion >•. Rigby, Taml. 421 ; 9 L. -L 
Ch. N. S. 211. See Ifovenden i'. Lord 
Annesley, 2 Sch. & Lef. 6u7, 639. 



* Farnam v. Brooks, 9 Pick. 212 ; Ilite r. Flite, 1 B. :Mon. 177 ; Sliannon 
V. Whiic, G Rich. Eq. OG; Buckuer v. Calcote, 28 Miss. 432; Parkliam 
V. McCrary, G Rich. Eq. 140. 

t Maxwell v. Kennedy, 8 How. 210 ; Edmonds v. Goodwin, 28 Geo. .38 ; 
Smith V. Talbot, 18 Tex. 77-1 ; Smith r. Fly, 24 Tex. 345 ; Whaley v. Eliott, 
1 A. K. :Marsh. 34.3. 

X Ochlcr p. "Walker, 2 H, & G. 323; Carr r. Bol), 7 Dana, 417 ; Fall r. 
Torreance, 2 Ilawk?, 490. 

There is no equity from a disability that -was voluntary and self-im- 
posed. Wa<rner r. Bird. 7 How. 234. 

§ Perry v. Crary, 3 Mo. 31G ; Locke v. Armstrong, 2 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 117. 



:n*2 LOSS OF i:i(;iiT T(» iMiT.Arn 

any act to jxivc it cllcct, kvr\^ alivi' a ri.:,'lit which \v..uhl 1»e 
otherwise bant <1.' 

"When time has once hcunin t«> run ai:ain>t a man, all |>er- 
soiis who derive their rii^'ht throu_i,'h him will he all'ccted with 
the disabilities which allected him.' Nor can the representiv 
lives of ft man be in a better position than tin* man himself.'* 
A remainder-man may, durintr the lite of the tenant for lite, 
file a bill to impeach a sale nnder a decree, but ho is not bar- 
red by laches, if he wait until the death of the tenant for life.* 

PURCHASE FOR VALUE WITIKHT NOTICE. 
The riirht to impeach a transaction on the ground of fraud, 
has no place as ai^^ainst third ])arties, who have paid money and 
acquired a leijal rii^ht to property, w ithout notice of the fraud. 
As a'minst n purchaser for valuable consideration withnut 
notice, having the legal title, no relief can be had in equity. 
If a man has paid his money in ignorance of the fact that an- 
other partv has an equitable claim to the ])roperty, a court <.t' 
equitv will not deprive him of the bcndit of his legal title, 
even although his equitable claim be of later date than that of 
the other partv.'* The ride that a man who advances money 

' Clcffj; «•• Edmomlson, 8 D. M. A H. * Lloyil r. Pn>^sin-hnin, Coop. l.Vi; 

787- Ernest v. Viviun, 33 L. J. Cli. Att.-(;cii. r. Kliiit. 1 lln. ir.C; IJlaoki.- 

513* c. Clark, 15 15oav. ^^•.'> ; CoMK-tt v. 

'Clanricnrdc v. Ilcnninp:, 30 Bcav. Brock, 20 Hoav. B2S; DaWMin r. 

n.-i; Krni-st v. Vivian. 33 L. J. Cli. I'linci-. 2 1). .t J. 41 ; Dod.ls v. llilla. 2 

r.13' Sec Murray f. raliiKT. 2 Sell. A 11. A M. •121; Coiup. V.irlcy ••. Cooke. 

Lef. 480; Whull.y f. Wliailuy, 3 ISligli. 1 <'ilir. 230; Otfilvio v. Ji-nlTreson. 2 

I ' " . - (iilV. 37'.i; Cotlnm r. Eastern Counties 

* Skottowo f. WilliaiiiH. 3 I). F. «t J. Itailwny Co. 1 .1. A II. 213. See I'ur- 
ri35 tjco iJcllew V. Uiissell, 1 Un. & cell r. Kelly. Ikat. 4V2 ; Kyre t-. Bur 
lie.^a. inester, 10 II. L. '.•(». 

• BuwcD r. Evons, 1 .1. li: L. 265. 



• IIiiwlcv r. Crnnu't. 1 Cow. 717; Green r. Tunncr, 8 Met. Ill ; Love r. 
Hriixton, n Call, .'5:17; Creasy r. I'liilips, '2 Root, 420; Wnmlmr/ec r. Ken- 
nedy, 4 Dc.Hmiu. 474 ; Moore r. ('l:iy, 7 Ala. 712; ()\vin;;s r. .Iiiit. 2 A. K. 
Murab. 380; Lcminon r. Ilrowii, 4 IJilih, :J08 ; Prevo 1. A\iill<rs. 4 Scam. 

A grantee hoKiing property under u IVnudulent <le( il. may mnvty it so 



ON Tin: GROUND OF lUAlI). 313 

hand file, M\(\ witlmut notico of the iiilirinity ol' tin.' title of 
tlic M'llt'i-, will l»c jn-otc'cted in e(]uit_v, a])|>li('s ciiiimIIv to renl 
estate, chattels, and ])ersonal estate.^ The rule is. suliject to no 
exceptions even in favor of cliarities.^ 

A })urchaser for valuable consideraliun without notice of 
any defect in liis title, or of the existence of any ])ri()r equitable 
incund)rance at the time when he advanced his money, may 
buy in or obtain any outstanding legal estate, not hehl upon 
cxjjress trust for an adverse claimant, or a judgment, or any 
other legal advantage, the possession of which may be a pro- 
tection to himself or an embarrassment to other claimants.' 

' Joyce w. De Jloloyns, 2 J. <t L. 377 ; 4r)R; iVtnnndrell ?;. Mflundrell, 10 Ves. 

T)n\v8()n V. I'rinco, 2 1). &, J. 40; Doikls 2J() ; lhi>,'hcs v. Garner, 2 Y. <t C. 328; 

V. Hills. 2 11. A- M. 421. Sec Thorn- Cart.r v. Carter, 3 K. <t J. 017 ; Bates 

•like I', lliiiit, 3 I). <t. J. 5G3 ; Case v. v. Jnlmson, Johns. 30.1; Sharple.s v. 

James, 20 Beav. .M2. Adams, 32 Beav. 213; Fag;,' v. James, 

' Att.-Gen. v. Wilkins, 17 Beav. 203. 8 L. T. N. S. 7. See Prosser v. Uice, 

• Saunders v. D.l.ew, 2 Vern. 471 ; 28 Beav. 08; Dodds v. Hills, 2 II. &. M. 

Willou-hhy V. Wilioutrliby, 1 T. R. 424. 

7t'>3; Jerrard v. Saunders, 2 Yes. Jr. 



as to hind the creditors of the fjrantor. Roberts v. Anderson, 18 Johns. 
515; 8. c. 3 Johns. Ch. 371; Ncal r. "Williams, fl Shop. 391 ; Green r. Tan- 
ner, 8 Met. 411; Coleman v. Cooke, G Rand. 618; Bean v. Smith, 2 Mason, 
252; Diigan y. Vattier, 3 Blackf. 245; Cumniinirs r. McCullough, 5 Ala. 
324; Boyce r. ^Yallcr, 2 B. :Mon. 91 ; Agricultural Bank v. Dorsey, 1 Frecm. 
Ch. 338; contra, Preston v. Crofut, 1 Day, 527; Read v. Slater, 3 Ilayw. 
159. 

A person ^iio is by construction turned into a trustee without any 
knowledge on his part that he is trustee, or of the facts that n a'ce him 
trustee, may be a l>oii'i Jide purcha.ser of the share of another tenant in 
common of the same propiM-ty. Giddings r. Eastman, 5 Paige, 5G1. 

The true question is, whether the purchaser has acted in good faith and 
purchased under circumstances of apparent right in the vendor to convey. 
A purchase by way of a mere release where, by reason of a priority of 
estate between the parties, it operates by way of enlarging the estate of 
the releasee, or of passing the estate of the releasor, may make a hotid 
fide purchaser. Flagg r. Mann, 2 Sunmer, 48G. 

The rule of law, which secures protection to a liona jide purchaser who 
has dealt in good faith with a fraudulent vendee having the possession, 
applies with equal force to a case where the original sale and delivery were 
subject to conditions of which he is ignorant. Hall r. Hinks, 21 Md. 406;, 
contra, Coiigill r. Hartford & New IlaA en R. R. Co., 3 Grav, 545. 
i>l 



-Hi LOSS oi' r.iciiT TO riiTACii 

The authorities cstahlish that a i»uri'hasiT IV. "m n person in 
possession, purchasing witliout n(»tiec of any j>iit)r charge or 
trust, and obtaining a, conveyance of" tlic h-gal estate from a 
trustee of a satisfied torin or mortgagee, whose mortgage is 
s:itisfie<l, will he protected in this court against a prior incum- 
brance or c<:sfui que trusty provided the party so conveying 
the legal estate has no notice of the prior trust or incund)rance. 
Ihit it has never been dei-ided tliat where the party so convey- 
ing liJis notice of an express prior trust or incumbrance, the 
purchaser can protect himself therefrom by means of the legal 
estate.^ Althoui;h a man havin*; notice of an intervening; in- 
cumbrancc may get in any outstanding legal estate, which a 
person witliout notice of any intervening iiiemnbrance may 
honajidt assign to him, he cannot procure a conveyance from 
a person who himself has a duty to ])erform, and who by such 
conveyance would, in fact, be making over the estate to protect 
the former against the very interests whicli it was his duty to 
protect.* Some of the earlier cases on the subject of purchase 
for value without notice, have, it may be observed, gone to 
further length than would be supported by modern decisions.' 

The protection from getting in the legal estate extends 
even to cases where the apparent or asserted e4uital»le title is 
de<luced through a forged instrument ; ' jnoviiled the asserted 
or apjjarent title of the party from whom it was derived was 
clothed with possession.' If the asserted or apjjarent title is 
deduced through a forged instrument, or through an instru- 
ment which has been obtained liy a trick or a cheat, the doc- 
trine of j)urchase for value without notice cannot apply, unless 
the party from wIkum the title is deduced had takiii possession, 

' Carter t-. CarU-r, U K. «k J. 017, en r. Kvano, 1 J. .t L. 2(A\ Llo3-(l r. 

C40. Atlwood. H 1>. i!L J. Gr>5 ; t'oinp. Es- 

' Ih. C-12. <lnil<- f. \m Nnu7.o, 1 Y. it (". 400. 

» Hi. p. n 0. /wr WocmI, L. J. ».foneM r. I'owlos, 3 M. A K. ROfl; 

* .loneH f. TowlrH. :t M. «l- K. nwl ; Oirilvii; .-. .Ii-nirn-min, 1! (iilF. USO. Sco 

I»aw»')ii t'. I'ri(i<'<', '.£ 1>. «i .1. 11. Sco (dttatn v. Kll^l^■n> Cuuu'Jca Uaihvay 

Llojd ♦. J'asointjlinm, Coop. \'>'l ; How- Co., 1 J. il: II. 218. 



(IN Tin: CltolNI) OF FRAUD. 31.") 

and beiiiuj in ])(»ssc>si«>ii, ;is ;ij)]i;irciit owner, lia<l sold an<l con- 
veyed iur value.' '^' 

To raise tlie ciiuify of jnircliase lor value withoiif notice, it 
is not necessary to j)rove jiossession. It is enoii;,di that the 
purchase be from an a])j)arcnt owner wlio was actually in pos- 
session.' If, however, an instrument, wliich jjurports to con- 
vey a legal estate or interest, be a forged instrument, no title 
can be ac(^iiii-ed under it. A man M'ho takes under such an 
instrument has no title at all, and cannot claim as a purchaser 
without notice.^ Jf the indorsement on a bill of exchange be 
forged, it is the same as if there were no indorsement at all ; 
nor will a real indorsement by the payee after the bill has 
arrived at maturity, give the holder any title, if tlie original 
indorsement Avas a forgery.* 

The legal estate will not protect a purchaser against the 
claims of persons whose prior right to its protection was known 
to him before completion of the purchase, even althongli the 
extent of such claims were unknown; fur instance, when A, 
knowing that I> h;id a charge on the proj^erty, accepted a mort- 
gage of the estate, relying on the mortgagor's covenant, and 
then got in an old outstanding term of years, it was held that 
B, having, in respect of A's notice of the first incumbrance, a 
preferable right to require an assignment of the term, was en- 
titled to priority not only in respect of such first incumbrance, 
but also in respect of a subsequent charge of which A had no 
notice at the date of his advance.' 

' Orcilvie V. JcnfTreson. 2 Giff. 380. * Esdnilc v. La Nauzp, 1 Y. <fe C. 3'.<0. 

MViillwynn v. Lee. Ves. 24; Ogil- * Willou^r'iby >: Willou^hln'. 1 T. Jl. 

^•ie V. Jenih-eson, 'i (off. :i1'.K 703. ISee tjharples v. Acluiiis,"32 Beav. 

• Esdnile r. La N'luize, 1 Y. & C. P.ito. 213. 
See Cottani v. Eastern Counties Kail- 
way Co., 1 J. <fc IJ. 248. 



* Case r. Jennings, 17 Tex, G61 : Brower r. Pcabody, 3 Kcman, 121 ; 
Caldwell r. Bartlett, :j D.icr, 341 ; Johnson r. Boylcs, 2G Alii. 570 ; Wooster 
r. Sherwood, 25 N. Y. 278. 



31G LOSS (M' KKillT TO IMl'I.ACII 

The doctriiK' in icpinl to tlu- rlltil <•!' not ice, dofs imt 
afifcet a title ilerivi-d tVtua aiiotluT |iiTst>ii, in wIium' Inuuls it 
stood free tVum any such taint. A jMirfhasir \\ .11 \\<>\ Ik* alVectcd 
by notice o( an et|uital)le chiini. if he j»nrcha>u from ii veinh)r 
whi> liinisclf bought /lomi Jiih without notice.** So, also, if a 
person who has notice sells to aucttlur wlio luw no notice, and 
is, also, & bond Jide \n\r{A\,i)>{.n- for valiiaMc considerati<in, the 
latter may protect his title, althoujjjh it was atfeetcd with the 
ccpiity arising from notice in the hands of the perst)n from 
■vrhom he received it.^f A person atfccted by notice has the 
bcnetit of want of notice by intermediate purchasers." The 
bond fide purchase of an estate for valuable consideration, 
purges away the eipiity iVoiii the estate in the hands of all per- 
sons who may derive title under it, with the exception of the 
oriirinal part}-, who.se conscience stands bound by the meditated 
fraud. If the estate becomes revested in him, the originjd 
equity will attach to it in his hands.* :J: A j)urcliaser, however, 
liaving notice, cannot insist on holding the legal estate as 
against those parties with notice, of whose right that estate 
was taken.' A man who has notice of a fact which ought to 

' Unrrifon »•. Forth, I'rcc. Ch. X^\ ; 1 2 .\tk. 242; Storv"^ Kq. .lur. 409. See 

Eq. Ca. Ab. 3:U. j.!. •'. ; Luwtlier v. Carl- D.kM-* v. Hills, 2 Ha. .V M. 424. 

ton, 2 Atk. 2J2; Brainllyn v. Onl. 1 ' .Mcliuicn «'. KanjuliMr, 11 Vi-s. 4fi7. 

Alk. 571 ; Swc-i-t v. Soutlicote, 2 Bro. * Kt-niu-il}- 1-. Daly. 1 Scli. ,t Lt-f. 379; 

C. C. 06; Andrew v. Wrigley, 4 '\U. Story's Kn. -Inr. 41<>: Comp Carter v. 

12.1. See Dart, V. <k P. 585. ' Cart«r, 3 K. it .1. til7; Butea r. Jobn- 

"» Ferrari* r. Cherry, 2 Vcrn. 384; son. John. Jio'.t. 

Merlins .•. JoUifTe, Anik :n:J; Lowther ' AlKii v. Kni-ht, .". lln. 278. 
V. Carllon, Banianl, Ch. 1558; For. Ib7 ; 



♦ Lacy r. Wilson. 4 Miint :5i:i; Fcnno v. Sayrc, 2 Ala. 4.'j8 ; Holmes r. 
Stout. :{ Grwn'H C'li. 41»2; City Comuil r. Page, Spear's Ch. 159; Lindsay 
r. Rankin, 4 Hilib. 4s2; Hmnpuss t. Plainer, 1 John.s. Cli. 2l;{; Myers r. 
Pttk, 2 Ala. 04 M. 

t Vttrick r. Brigk'". '^ P'OKC, 223; Tompkins r. Pemll, 6 Lei^'h, 570; 
Mallory r. Stodder, Ala. bOl ; Bracken r. Miller, 4 W. in, S. 102 ; Hill ». 
Paul. « Miss. 470; Pierce r. Faunee, 47 .Me. 507. 

I Fitzimmons r. ();^Mlen. 7 Craneli, 21S; AIe.xander c. Pendleton, 8 
Criinili, 402; Jackson r, Htnry. 10 Jt>lins. 185. 



ON TIIIO f'.KOI NI> OK IKAID. 317 

liavo j)tit him on ini[iiirv. miuI wliidi lie ini^'lif liiivc discovered 
by usin^ due diligence, caiuiut cljiiiii as a pnrcliaser witliout 
notice.' If a ])urc]iaser clKxtscs to rest satisfied witliout the 
knowleilge which he has a right to re<|uire, he cannot claim us 
u ]>urc]iaser without notice.^ Nor can a M)an who has by bis 
own act ])rcclu(lc(l hiniself from tlie means of knowledge, or 
fronj information, set u}) as against persons as innocent as him- 
6elf, the want of information which he has precluded bimself 
from obtaining.' A purchaser, for examjile, who buys with 
notice of circumstances sufficient to invalidate the sale, is not 
protected by a proviso that the jturchaser need not inquire.'* 
So, also, a man who takes the assignment of a lease under a 
condition not to inquire into the lessor's title, must have im- 
puted to him the knowledge which, on prudent inquiry, he 
would have obtained.' Xor are special conditions of sale, limit- 
ing the extent of title, an excuse for a purchaser not insisting 
on the production of a deed beyond those limits of wbicli be 
had notice." Trustees of a settlement for the benefit of a par- 
ticular person, ciinnot stand any higlier than the person for 
whom they are trustees in respect of notice. If be is affected 
by notice, they cannot claim as purchasers for value without 
notice.' 

Purchasers under a decree of the court take with notice of 
fraud apparent on the face of the decree.' A decree is no pro- 
tection against persons of whom the purchaser has actual notice 
that they ouglit to have been, but are not, parties to the suit.' 
But a purchaser under a decree will not be affected by fraud in 

'Jackson v. Howe. 2 Sim. <fe St 475; ' Robson v. Flight, 34 L. J. Ch. 226; 

Jones I', rowle-!, S M. cfc K. 590 ; Ker Clements v. Welles, L. II. 1 Eq. 200. 
f. Loril Dunyfaimon, 1 Dr. (fc Wur. 542; ° Peto t;. Hammond, So Beav. 495. 

Kobinson »■. Hriirgs, 1 Sni. »fc G. 188; ' Spaiijlit t>. Cowne. 1 II. «t M. 359. 

Davies v. Tliomas, 2 Y. «fe C. 234 ; Jen- ' Toulmin v. Steere, 3 Mer. 210; Gore 

kins V. Jones. 2 Giff. 99; O^ilvie v. v. Stackpoole, 1 Dow. 30; cit. 1 J. <t 

Jeaffreson, il>. ;>7S. L. 257. 

" I'iirker v. Wbytc, 1 H. & M. 107. * Colclou-rJi i*. Sternm, 3 Bliirh, 181, 

' N'ieoll's Case, 3 D. ct J. 387. 180; Tiers v. Piers, 1 Dr. & WaL 265; 

* Jenkins v. Jones, 2 Gitf. 9'J. Rolleston t-. Morton, 1 Dr. «t War. 177. 



31S LOSS oi laciir to imtkacii 

tho procccilinj^ of wliich he himself is innocent/ unless it bo 
I'.ppartnt on the face t>f the decree.' Xor is a wile impeachable 
ou the ^iMuml nf its having been the object Ibr \vhii'h the suit, 
professedly dircetctl to other purposes, was in fact instituted.' 

T(» entitle a ni:in !(• the i-haracter (»f a bond jide purchaser 
without nuticc, he must have ac(piired the lepd title, and Lave 
actually paid the purchase money, or parted with something 
of value l>y way of jjayment before receiving notice,** A 
ixirty claiming to be a purchaser lor value without notice 
un<ler a marriage contract, entered into in pursuance of arti- 
cles, uiust show that he liad no notice at the time of the settle- 
ment ; proof that he had no notice at the time of the articles is 
not sufficient.' t The protection to which a land jide pur- 
chaser without notice is entitled, extends only to the money 
which has been actually jiaid, or to the securities which have 
been actually appropriated by way of i)ayment before notice.':}: 
Notice before actual payment of all the ])urchase money, 

' Sug. 110; Dart, T74; Bowen v. v. Kernan, 2 Dr. it War. lU ; Boroll v. 

Evaiud J. <t L. 178; '1 IF. L. 2.'.7; Dann. 2 Ha. 4I0; Itayno v. Baker. 1 

Eilgeworth v. EJf^cworlli, 12 Ir. Eq. Gift. 215. See Wliitworlli v. (!au;,'aiii. 

81. Cr. it I'll. 32.'); AU.-Ueii. v. Flint. 4 lln. 

• Gore V. Stackpoolo, 1 Dow. 30; cit. 147. \:>f>. 

1 J. <t L. 257. ' Daviis v. Thomas. 2 Y. it ('. 2:!4. 

» Bowen ». Evans, 1 J. it L. 178; 2 "Story v. Wiii.Uor. 2 Atk. (WO; 

II. L. i!57. llardiii'/liaiii i'. Nielioll.^, :{ Atk. o04 ; 

* How I'. Weldon, 2 Ves. 516; Story Kaync i-. Baker, 1 GifV. 245. 
t'. Lord WiudBor, 2 Atk. C^U; Molouy 



* Wormloy r. Wnrmlcy, 8 "Whcnt. 401 ; Bliirht r. Ranks, fl Mon. 102: 
•Tackson r. Sumincrvilk', 1:5 Ptim. HoU; Ki-itcreasc r. Levin, :!(> Miss. TAW) \ 
Duf;nn r. Vatticr, '.\ Hlnckf. 'iJ.j ; Wood r. Mann, 1 Sumner, TjOd ; IJoswcll 
r. Buchanan, 3 Lii^'li, :J(55 ; CJou.st r. Martin, Z S. i.\: H. 4:J0. 

t V\i\\i\i r. Mann, 2 Sumner, 484 ; Dupluy r. Frcnaj^c, 5 Stew. & Port. 
215 : Inj^crson r. Starkweather, Walk. Ch. IMO, 

♦ Jcwett r. Palmer, 7 .lohns. t'h. (J."}; Willi.ims v. Ilolloway, 1 
Strohh. Eq. 103; Blanchanl r. Tyler, 12 Mich. WM); Wells r. Morrow, 38 
Ala. 12."^; Jones r. Head, :J Dana, .'>40 ; Pillow r. Shannon, 3 Yer;,'. 508; 
CurtiH r. Ilitclicock, 10 Paigo, 399. 

Where the conHMeration tor an assifniiiicnt or transfer from a fraudu- 
lent vendee is such that, after a redamiilion antl recovery l»y the vendor, 
the aMignce or transferee wouhl remain in the same coiiditinn its hcforo 



0\ Tin: CIKtlNI) OF IMJAII). 31!) 

allli(Mii,']i it 1)(' Hi'ciiiTil,' ■" and llio execution of tlie convey- 
jincc',' is hindiiii^ in tlie sanio manner as notic'u liad l)el'ore the 
contract. Altliniii^li, liowcvcr, a purchaser after conveyance 
e.xec'utL'd h.is no renu^dy at law aj^ainst the paynu-nt of money, 
for wliich he lias i^dven security, he may come int(» equity to 
have the money so secured emi)loyed in discliari^e of newly 
discovered incumltninces.' 

It has hcen laid that notice to a liurcliaser after payment 
of the purchase money, but before execution of the convey- 
ance, is sufficient to dej)rive him of tlie l)enetit of tlie legal 

' Tourvillo V. Naish, 3 P. "Wm. 307; Comp. Cregnn v. CuUen, 10 Ir. Ch. 339. 
Story V. Lord Windsor, 2 Atk. 0:50 ; 'Jones v. Stanley. 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 

Mooi-e V. Mavhow, 1 Cli. Ca. 34; liar- 085. See Allen v. Knight, 5 11a. 272, 

din!;hum v. 'Nieliolls, 3 Alk. 304; Til- 11 Jur. 527. 
desley v. Lodge, 3 Sm. & G. 643 ; ' Tourville v. Naish, 3 P. "Wm. 306. 

the assifirnnuiit or transfer, it is not sufficient to make such an assignment 
or transfer valid against the clefniudetl vendor. Something of value, in the 
way of ijropcrty or money, should be given or advanced ; some service 
rendered or liability incurred, on the faith and credit of the transfer, and 
a.s a pre.sent reciprocal consideration therefor. It follo\v.s tliat a transfer of 
property by a fraudulent vendee in consideration of a pre-c.xisting debt, 
confers no title as against the defrauded vendor. Katcliffe v. Saug.-tton, 18 
Md. 3815; Frew r. Daenman, 11 Ala. 880; Ingram r. Morgan, 4 Humph. 
GO; Diekerson v. Tillingliast, 4 Paige, 215; Coddington v. Bay, 20 Johns. 
0137 ; Powell r. JetTeries, 4 Scam. 387. 

Tlie relin(|uishmcnt of a valid security for a prior debt is a sufficient 
consicleration. Padget v. Lawrence, 10 Paige, 170. 

Part cash and ])art past indebtedness is good pro tanto. Pickett v. 
Barron, 2'J Barb. 505. 

If notice is only after a payment of part of the jiurchasc money, the 
purehascr is entitled to reimi)ursement as a condition of giving way to the 
title of the owner. Lewis v. Beatty, 32 Miss. 52; Goust r. Martin, 3 
S. & R. 428. 

The payment must be ])roved by some other evidence than the mere 
receipt in the d^cd. Lloyd tj. Lynch, 28 Penn. 411); Mitchell r. Pickett 
23 Tex. 573. 

* Notice after payment and execution, but before I'ccording is not suffi- 
cient. Ely t. Scotieid, 35 Barb. 330. 

A purchaser with notice of a prior unrecordeil conveyance may. never- 
theless, hold the legal estate if he has the prior equity. Carr r. Callaghan, 
3 Litt. i]G5. 



oliO r.nss (ir Kiciii in l^ll•: acii 

Cf trtto.* * Till' |»'>int, liiiWi'ViT, is one Nvliirli will ri'[uiri' luucli 
ronsidorntiiin \\]n\\ it .iriM-s ii^ain.' 

Wlu'U a purcliasrr, not liavini; ^ot in an ontstandini^ lep:!il 
e.>tati', lia.s novcrthok'ss, from liavin^:^ a litttcr i-ijuit y than thf 
other flaimnnts, the best ri^ht to call for it, he will in i<[iiity 
be entitled to its jn-otectit)!!.^ Hut althouirh the court holds 
that priority Mill .::ive e<|uity, yet it does not h^ld that it 
<;ivcs 80 superior an eipiity, as between several im-uinbrances 
and j)urehasers, as to enable the anterior claimant to wrest 
the legal estate from the jterson who has obtained it without 
notice of the anterior claim/ 

The defence of a purchase for value without notice, is a 
shield as well against a legal title as an e([uitable title.' Tlic 
])rinciple, in other words, applies as well when the right 
sought to be enforced is a legal right as when it is an equita- 
ble one.* The court holds that it is not equitable for a person 
who has bought for valuable consideration without notice, to 
be deprived of that for which he has i>aid his money, and will 
not give any lussistance to a party claiming against hini, or do 
anvthing to i)rejudice his right/ hut will leave the parties t(» 
their remedies at law.^ In Williams v. Lamhe^^ however, it 
was held by Lord Thurlow that the defence of purchase for 
value without notice could not be pleaded in bar to a suit for 
an account of dower, which a widow having a legal title 
BOUijht to eiifnrce ; and in ^ 'r>////<,v v. vl/v/^;','" it was held by 
Sir. J. Li'ach, M. K., that it was no answer t<t a bill for tithes. 

' Wi^'i,' f. WiL'tr. 1 Atk. 382. » Joyce v. I).' Mdlcyns. 2 J. A L. 377 . 

* Durt, V. »t r. :<lo. Att.-(;i'n. v. Wilkin^," 17 .lU-ov. 2'J3, 
» WilloUKhby r. Willou}rl)l)y. 1 T. R. " lb. 

7C« ; Bowi'ii V. Kvnnx, 1 .1. «t L. 2t'..'i; ' Wahvvnn »•. L<m', It Viw. 'ji; J,iyco 

I'nrkcr r. Cartt-r, » Ila. ni>; Dart, V. ••. Dc .MdIi-vux. 2 J. it I,. :i74 ; Att.- 

^ \\ r>41. (Jeii. f. Wilkiiis. 17 Hcnv. 292. 

* UooiKT ». Ilttrri^jn, 1 K. it .1. li)8, ' Att.-Ccn. i-. Wilkiiis. 17 Beav 292. 
.09 • :* l<r<>. (',«'. 2<.l 

* 1 U. it M. 2tJ J. 



♦ PealxMly r. Fcnt(»n, :{ BurlK C'li. \')\. 



OS Tin: (MiOlNl) Ol' FKAUD .'iL'l 

The doctrine of tlicsu cases, thou;,'Ii disapproved of and op- 
]»(»s('(l to iiiaiiy recent decisions,' has been aj)j)roved of by 
J.onl Wcsthurv, in /*/ii7ij)jhi v, Philijfps} But Lord St. 
]x>onar(ls^ docs not a]»i)rove of tlie reasoning of Lord AVestlniry 
in that case, and is of opinion that those cases were not cor- 
rectly decided. 

The defence of purchase for vahiablc consideration -without 
notice, will not prevent the court from protecting property by 
injunctinii, pending litigation.* 

Questions relating to the defence of purchase for valuable 
consideration without notice, are much modified by the opera- 
tion of the act for rendering unnecessary the assignment of 
satisfied terms. If the term is gone, it will not stand iu the 
way of the petitioner even at law.' 

As between persons claiming merely equitable interests, 
the defence of purchase for value without notice has no place. 
A party who purchases an equity takes it subject to all the 
equities which affect it in the hands of the assignor. The 
first grantee of an equity has the right to be paid first, and it 
is quite immaterial whether the subsequent incumbrancers had 
at the time they took their securities and paid their money, 
notice of a prior incumbrance.^ "' 

' See Payne v. Compton, 2 Y. & C. 670; Rooper v. Harrison, 2 K. <t J. lOS, 

461; Bowon v. Kvans;, 1 J. <fc L. 178, lU'.t ; Ford v. White, 16 Beav. 120; 

264; Jovc" V. l)e Molevns, 2 J. & L. Stackiiouse r. Cuuntess of Jersey. 1 J. 

374; Att.-Gen. v. Wilkins, 17 Beav. cfc H. 721; Case v. Jam.s. 8 D. F. A- J. 

2S5; Fincli v. Sliaw, 1'.) Beav. 509; 264; I'ariver v. Clarke, 30 beav. 51; 

Lane tv Jackson, 2it Beav. 535. Cory v. Eyre, 1 D. J. tt S. 167 ; Piiilipi>.s 

« 31 L. J. eh. 321. 326 v. IMiilipp's, 31 L. J. Cli. 321, 326. See 

' Su<j. V. it P. 7'.iO, 7'.M). Liebnian v. Harcourt, 2 .Mer. 520 ; Rice 

* Oreenslade v. I (are, 17 Beav. 502. v. Rice, 2 Drew. 73 ; Evre v. Burnies- 

' Finch V. Finch. 10 Beav. 500; ter, lo II. L. 'JO ; Dmlds i;. Hills, 2 II. 

("orry c Crcmorne, 12 Ir. Cli. 136. ik. M. 424; Comp. Lane i'. Jackson, 20 

° Frazcr v. Jones, 17 L. J. Cli. 353, Beav. 539. 

356; Manningford v. Toleman, 1 ColL 



* Poillon r. Martin, 1 Sandf. Ch. 560; Crawford r. Bcctbolf, Saxton, 
458; Jones r. Zollicofier, 2 Taylor, 214; Piuson p. Ivey, 1 Yerg. iiW; Du- 
pont V. Wetbcnnan, 10 Cal. 35-4. 



322 



LOSS OF IMdIir TO IMl'l'.Ani 



^Vlioro a ]':irty li;i> imtliiiii; iintrf than an ('nuitalilo in- 
terest, another j):irty who lias a piini* i<|iiitalili' interest will 
generally be pret'errt'd, the f^enera! rule luini; that, as between 
equities, he who is prior in point of tinio is prior in jtoint of 
right.* The maxim, qui prittr est tcniporc jnttun' (sf Jure, 
always applies between eipiities, unless there be something to 
take the parties out of the general rule* - Tho fac-t that the 
owner of the equitable interest who sets ujt the defence of 
purchase without notice, may be in possession, and has a right 
to call for the legal estate, does not vary the rulc.^ The 
assignee of a chose in action not assignable at law, cannot set 
up the defence of purchase for value without notice as against 
equities which attached to the security in the hands of tho 
assignor.* The person liable to the demand may so act as 
to create against himself an e<piity preventing the applica- 
tion of the rule. There may be such dealings between the 
assi'Miec and the partv liable orii;inallv as to itivclude him 
from insisting as against the assignee upon rights which ho 
might have claimed as against the assignor ; but, as a general 
rule, a person who buys a chose in action, which can oidy bo 
put in suit in the name of the original holder, takes subject to 
tho equities which ailV-ct the assignor, even although he bo a 
bond fde j)urchaser without notice." AVhcre, accordingly, a 
man boui;ht in the market, in the ordinary course of business, 
debentures which had been issued in fraud of a company, tho 

• Att-Gf-n. r. Flint, 4 Ha. 15(1. 103; Morri.s v. Livio. 1 Y. «fe ('. C. 0. 

• Frazer v. .Ioik-*. 17 L. J. Cli. 355; 3S0; Smith v. rark.s, Id Hcav. 115; 
liice V. Uioe, '1 I»i<w. 7H. Clnck r. HDUiiml. ]'.» Iti-av. 'HVl; Stnck- 

• I'bUil<pn V. l'iiilii>i.rt, 31 L. J. Cli. liou.tc'i'. Coiiiifiss <.f .hrscy. 1 J. it H. 
321. 7'^1 ; AtliiMiii'Uiii I.ifi' A H.suraiice Society 

• Coles V. Jones. '1 Vcrn. «92 ; Turtoii r. I'uolfy. :i l>. «t •'. '.i'.'l. 

!•. IJcii.Hon, 1 r. WiiH. •»".»»>; Tutor t;. * How r. Wcliloii. 2 Yes. 51»1; Cock- 

Iturkf, 1 Hro. ('. ('. 431; I'riilily i'. oil f. Taylor. 15 llonv. 1 03; yMliciia«uiii 

Il<)*<-, 3 Mer. Mft; Muii[;l(.>rt i'. Dixon. 3 Lifo AHsurancu Sucioty v. I'oolcy, 8 D. 

H. L. 7<)'2; Cockcll v. Tiiylor, 15 Ik-av. & J. 'l'J\. 

" Ilalctt e. Collins, 10 How. 174; Boono c. Cliilcn, 10 Pet. 177; Gnllion, 
r. MrCuHlin, 1 Bliukf. l'.»l ; Craig c. Lciper, 3 Ycrg. 10:1; Nai)iiT r. Kluin, 
« Ycrg. 10». 



ON Tin; cKoiNi) oi' imjaii*. 32'> 

facttliiit the truiistcr of the dcbontures liad haon rc^i.storod in 
the hooks of the comiumy, aiid interest luid hueii paid on 
tliem, and that the holder was a lotid fi(h piircliaser without 
notice, was heUl not to aft'ect tlie application of the rule, and 
tlie lioldcr of thciii was restrained from suing at law upon 
tlu'Hi.' The niK' tliat a man who ])urcliases a chose in action 
takes it subject to the equities, wliich attacli to it in th(; hands 
of the assignor, applies even wlierc tlie i)erson himself who 
asserts the ecpiity has created the interest under wdiich the 
assignee claims it.^ AVhere, accordingly, A mortgaged a iund 
in court to B, and afterwards joinutl W in a sul)-mortgage to 
C , and it was decided that the mortgage to B was fraudulent 
and void, it was held void as to C , and that neither A 's con- 
currence in the first or second mortgage prevented him from 
insisting on the invalidity of the transaction, he not being 
aware of his rights.'' 

The rule that a hond, fide purchaser, without notice, may 
buy in, or obtain for his protection against other claimants, an 
outstanding legal estate, or other legal advantage, is the 
foundation of the equitable doctrine of tacking, as it is tech- 
nically called, that is, uniting securities given at different 
times, so as to prevent any intermediate purchaser from claim- 
ing a title to redeem, or otherwise to discharge one lien which 
is prior in date, without redeeming or discharging the other 
liens also which are subsequent to his own title/ * Thus, if a 

' Ih. Comp. Thormlike r. Hunt, 3 ris v. Livic, 1 Y. <fe C. C. C. 380; Rnr- 

D. <L' J. 508; Ashwin v. Burton, 'J Jur. nett v. ShefficUl, 1 D. M. <fc G. 371 ; 

N. S. 319; Ilulctt's Case, 2 J. <t II. Stnckhouse v. Countess of Jersey, 1 J. 

800; WooiUiaiiis v. Ani^lo-Aiistraliim, it II. 721. 

d'C. Co., 3 Giff. 238. 2 I>. .1. it S. IC.s ; ^ Cockell v. Taylor, 15 Bcav. 119. 

Doclilsi. Hills, 211. ct-M. 421. See also ^ Ih. 103. 

rinketti'. Wriiclit, 2ll:i. 137.S C. onap- •Jeremy's Eq. Jur. b. I, c. ii, ,^ 1 ; 

leal ; Murray v. I'inkett, 12 CI. «fc Fin. Story's Eq. Jur. 412. 



peal ; .> 
780; M 



oore V. Jervis, 2 Coll. 60 ; Mor- 



*Tlie doctrine of tackinji is never allowed aprainst incumbrances which 
are recorded. Averill r. Guthrie, S Dana, 82; Oiboru r. Carr, 13 Ct. 196; 
St. Andrew's Church v. Tomkins, 7 Joh.s. Cj. 1-1. 



;:jt ki:mi:i)ii:s. 

tliinl mort,<;ni;pi\ without notii-o (.f a socoiul mortirnijoe at the 
time when he h-iit his iiioiu-v, shniihl |.nrch;iM' in llie tirst 
lUort<^<;e, h.v which he Wculd ac'iuire the \v<j;:i\ titk*, the 
second niorti^Mj^ee cannot redeem the lirst morti^'a^^'c without 
redeeming: the tliird nu>rt<j:a;,'e also. It is iinnialorial that the 
thirtl inort-^'a-^ee may have had notice of the second mort^rage 
at the time of purchasini,' in the iirst mort<;agc, provided he 
liad no sueh notice at tlie time lie advanced Lis money.^ Hie 
ahsence of notice at the time of the advance is the ground of 
the equity.' The legal estate, accordingly, of the lirst mort- 
gagee will not protect subsequent interests purchased witli 
notice of mes?u' incumliranees. A man purchasing an equity 
».f redemption, cannot set up a prior mortgage of his own, or a 
mortgage which he has got in against subsequent incumbrances 
of which he had notice.' 



SECTION VII.— K EM i: DIES. 

REMEDIES AT LAW. 

An action on the case for damages in the nature of a writ 
of deceit, lies at law against a man f..r making a false and 
fraudulent representation, whereby another is induced to enter 
into a transaction, and by so doing sustains damage.* * If the 
representation be false, it is immaterial that it may have been 
made without any frau<lulent intent, or that tiie party who 

• Marcli f. Loo, 1 Cli. fa. K,2; Mor- » Tirnro >■. Diichcs of .Marlborough. 2 

rctt f. l'ii-k<'. 2 .\tk. :>•>; Wortlcy »'. 1*. Wins. 4'.il ; llopkinson v. Uolt, U U. 

r.irklun'l, 'J Ve*. r>71 ; I^accy i'. Incio, L. Ml. 

2 I'll. 4iy ; K'xtl>er v. llnrriHon. 2 IC. A ' Toulmin v. Stocrc. .T Mcr. 221. 

.l Kt); Bat<-H V. Ji.liiiHon, .l»lm. HO J. Soo * Piwley v. Freeuiuii, 3T. 11. 62, siipra, 

Lloyd ». Attwood, » U ct J. fiH. p. 03. 



♦ Younff V. Hull, 4 Geo. 95 ; Irwin r. Phcrrill, 1 Taylor. 1 ; Pritton r. 
Oumov, i:i MftSH. 1N2: Wfathcrford v. Fishback, '.) Scam. 170; Kcniiuore 
c. United States, :j Dullua, y57. 



ki:m 101)1 i:s. 3'J.") 

mkkIc if iiiav liuvo derive*! no benefit from it.** The {.riiiciplc 
of l:i\v i>, lli.it i'vaud accoMi]):inie(l by daiiiai^e is in all cases ft 
good cause of action.'- A rc])r('sentati(jn, hou'evcr, lionestly 
believed to be true by tlie i)arty luakinf^ it, is not, indciieu- 
dentlv of a <bity cast on biiii to kii(»\v the truth, a <^ood cause 
of action, althou<;li it may prove to be untrue.^ f 

If tlic transacti(.n be a contract, the rule of law with 

» Polliill V. Wnltcr, :{ 15. <t A. 114 ; liill v. Wnltor, :j K A- A. 114; Foster «•. 
Foster v. Clmrlis, 7 Biu;;, InO, snpra, C'liarlc-i. 7 I'-iiiL,'. n>'">. 
j,p 65 5C, Mlavcrftft >: IrLHsy. 2 EnRt. 92; 

» I'asley i-. Freeman. .3 T. R. 52 ; Fol- TIkmii r. IM-rlnnd, s Exeli. 726 ; Ormrod 

1'. Ilulh, 14 M. & W. 051. 



* Smith r. ]\Iit(lull, Gfo. 458 ; Stiles v. White, It Met. 350; Young 
r. Hull, 4 Goo. 1)5; Unit r. Talmadge, 2 Day, 381; Clopton r. Co<,'art, 13 
Smed. & Mar. 303; Collin-? r. Dcnnison, 12 Met. 543; West r. Kmcry, 
17 Vt. 583 ; Boyd v. Browu, 6 Barr, 310; Munson v. Gairduer, 3 Brevard, 
31. 

t Boyd V. Brown, BaiT, 31 G ; Weeks v. Burton, 7 Vt. 67 ; Young v. 
Covell, 8 John."?. 25; Stone r. Denny, 4 Met. 151 ; Tryon v. Whitmarsh, 1 
Met. 1 ; Rusi^ell c. Clark, 7 Crancli, G2. 

Fraud and injury must concur to t'uniish ground lor judicial action. A 
mere fraudulent intent, unaccompanied by any injurious act, is not the 
subject of judicial cognizance. Clark v. White, 12 Pet. 178; G arrow ©. 
Davis, 15 How. 272; Morgan v. Bliss, 2 Mass. Ill; Farrar c. Alston, 1 
Dev. 09. 

If a claim is niadr for fraud, the representations must not only l)e false, 
but false to the knowledge of the party making them. :Marshall r. Gray, 
57 Barb. 414; Pettigrew r. Chcllis, 41 N. II. 95; Staines v. Shore, 10 Pcnn, 
200 ; Bendurant v. Crawford, 22 Iowa, 40 ; Morton r. Scull, 23 Ark. 289 ; 
King r. Eagle, 10 Allen. 54S ; Taylor r. Frost, 39 Mi^s. 528 ; Allen r. Wanu- 
maker, 2 Vroom, 370 ; Bond v. Clark, 35 Vt. 577 ; Zehncr r. Kipler, 10 Ind. 
290 ; Peers r. Davis, 29 Mo. 184 ; Holmes r. Clark, 10 Iowa, 423. 

If a person, with intent to deceive and defraud, asserts a fact as exist- 
ing of his own knowledge, when he has no knowledge upon the subject, 
he is lial)le to the party injured for the falsehood. In that case, there is 
guilty knowledge, for he claims to know, and asserts what he docs not 
know. Atwood r. Wright, 29 Ala. 340 ; Bennett v. Judson. 21 X. Y. 233 ; 
Craig V. Ward, 30 Barb. 377 ; Sharp r. New York, 40 Barb. 250. 

An action may be sustained for a misrepresentation by which a crcdiia- 
has l)een induced to allow the Statute of Limitations to bar his claim. 
^Carshall r. Buchanan, 35 Cal. 204. 

In cases of fraud, it is immaterial whether any or what covenants aro 



32G in:Mi:i»ir.s. 

respect t(» false au«l iVauduli'iit ivjuvrJciitation a])])lies, notwitli- 
Btaiulin:; the cttiitraot may Ikim- hicii in wiitiiiLT, :inil iiutwitb- 
BtaiuliiiLr the ri'])rr>L'iitations, may \>v ii«) i>arf ft" the terms of 
the written cctiitraet.' 

To found an action of deceit, the fraud must ho a j>cr.sonal one 
on tlie ]):irt of tlic person makiiii: tlie representation, or some 
fraud whieli anuthcr person has impliedly authorized him to be 
guilty of. An action of deceit cannot be brou;;ht against a 
principal for the fraudulent representations of his a;;ent, unless 
lie has impliedly authorized liim to make the representations.' 
An incoii^orated company cannot, therefore, in its corporate 
capacity, be called upon to answer in an action of deceit for 
false rcjircsentations made by its directors, unless they have 
authorized the representations. The company cannot be sued 
as wrong-doers by imputing to them the misconduct of those 
whom they have employed. An aetioii of deceit may bo 
maintained against the directors personally ; but not against 
the company.' 

A purchaser may, after conveyance, l)ring an action in the 
case for a fraudulent misrepresentation of the property,* * or 

' Attwood V. Small, You. In?, per L. 11. 1, Sc. .Ap]). ("n. ir.'2; Ilondcrson 

Lord Lynilliurst. v. l.ncon. L. H. .'>, Kq. 'JOJ. 

» New Brunswick «tc. lUilwny f. * Dobill v. Stivens, .'{ U. «t C. 623 ; 

Conybcnrc, 9 II. L. 711 ; Henderson v. Mnniinery v. I'liul. 1 C. h. 31t'. ; FiilliT 

Lacon, L. II. n, Eq. 202. r. Wildon, 3 Q. K r.H, OS; Girhnrd v. 

* Wffltfrn Bank of Scotland v. Addic, Bates, 2 E. d: B. -ITC. 



contained in the dccil. Wanlcll r. Fosdick, 13 Johns. 32.1; Shacklcford r. 
Handy, 1 -\. K. .Marsh. 10"); Hostwick r. L«\vi.-i, 1 Day, 'JoO ; Cravens f. 
Grant, 2 Men. 117 : h. c. 1 .Mon. 12(i. 

The Hinjple fact of making' representations in rcf^anl to tho credit of 
another, which turn cmt t<» Iju untrue, uncounectc<I with a iVauthilcnt design, 
is not BUflicicnt to support an action. Lord r. Goihhird, 13 How. 108; 
Lord r. Colley, N. II. ttU; Youn-,' r. Covcll, H Joliiis. 2*); Williams r. 
Wood, 14 Johns. 12(5 ; Fookn r. Waple.'^, 1 Harrinp. 131; Hopper e Lisk, 
1 Smith, 102; Uptoti r. Vail, G Johns. IHI ; Allen r. Adilin^rton, T 
Wend. 1. 

♦ .Maliory r. Ix-ach, 35 Vt. lid ; Kelly r. Pember, 35 Vt. 183 ; Ciifford r. 
Can-ill, 20 Cal. 583; Love r. Oldham, 22 Ind. 51. 



REMEDIES. Ii27 

the title;* or may recover tlie piircliase-money, if tlic circ-um- 
stanees of tlic ease entitle him to rescind the contract.** 

• Pillmoro v. I loo J, 5 Bing. N. C. 97. ' Early v. Garrett, 4 XI. A II. 667. Sco 

Dart, V. «fe P. 612-GI4. 



* Pcnrsoll V. Clinpin, 41 Pcnn. 9 ; Sliacklefonl r. IIan<ly, 1 A. K. Marsh. 
405. 

Fmiul in a contract is no bar to an action upon a contract, unless there 
is a rescission or oiler to rescind the contract within a reasonable time after 
the «li3covcry of the fraud. Benton r. Stewart, 3 Wend. 230; Bain r. 
Wilson, 1 J. J. Marsh. 202. 

The defendant in case of fraud is entilleil to a deduction of an amount 
equal to the difference between the value of the property, on the supposi- 
tion of its corresponding with the representations and its real value. 
Ward V. Reynolds, 32 Ala. 384; Hinckley v. Ilendrickson, 5 McLean, 170; 
Blsehof «. Lucas, G Ind. 2G ; Smith v. Smith, 30 Vt.l39; Weinier r. Clem- 
ent, 37 Penn. 147; Cecil r. Spurger, 32 Mo. 4G2; Iluckabee r. Ilutter, 10 
Ala. G.j7; Groff r. Hansel, 33 Md. IGl ; Withers v. Greene, 9 How. 230; 
Berker r. Yrooman, 13 Johns. 302; Spalding v. Vandercook, 2 Wend. 432. 

In an action of ejectment, replevin, trover, assumpsit, or other forms 
of action, for the purpose of recovering back anything, as on the rescission 
of a contract, the very first thing to be done, after showing that the plaintiff 
parted with the thing in pursuance of the contract alleged, is to show that 
the plaintilfhas rescinded the contract by doing, or offering to do, all that 
is necessary and reasonably possible to restore the parties to the condition 
in which they were before the contract, and thus to show tiiat he had good 
ground to rescind it. Pearsoll v. Chapin, 44 Penn. 9; Butter r. Blake, 2 
H. & J. 353 ; Norton v. Young, 3 Grcenl. 30 ; Sanborn r. Osgood, IC N. H. 
112 ; Weeks v. Robie, 42 N. H. 31G ; Gulth r. White, 35 Barb. 7G ; Wasson 
T. Bovct, 1 Denio, GO ; Thayer i\ Turner, 8 Met. 552 ; Ball r. Lively, 4 Dana, 
371 ; Kinney r. Kieruian, 2 Lr.ns. 4G. 

If the tiling the consideration of which is sought to be recovered is 
entirely worthless, there need be no tender of a return. Whenever the 
question of restoration arises, it is an equitable question, and is to be dealt 
with on equitable principles. Balicock r. Case, Gl Penn. 427; ^lahone r. 
Beeves, 11 AJa. 345; Smith r. Smith, 30 Vt. 139; Phelan v. Crosby, 2 Gill. 
402. 

A party can not excuse an omission to return the note of a third person 
by offering to prove that the maker is insolvent, and the note on that 
account worthless. Cook v. Gilman, 34 N, II. 55G ; Gushing r. Wyman, 38 
Me. 589 ; Baker r. Bobbins, 2 Denio, 13G. 

Leaving a deed of reconveyance with the clerk of the court in which an 
action is pending, upon the note given as the consideration for the 
property, is a sufficient restoration. Concord Bank r. Gregg, 14 N. H. 
331. 



;;JS RKMKDIES. 

If n c<mtract ft»r tlio sale or luirdinsc of floods or chattels be 
induced Ity false and iVaudiiKnl ici»rcsentations un tlio |>art of 
the other j>;irty t«t the contract, tin- |i;uty (IcrraiuliMl may 
rescind or avoid the c»»ntract, and recover itack what lie iiaa 
paid or sold,* unless he has, after discovery of the fraud, acted 
upon and treated tiie contract as binding.'' The ri<,dit to 
rescind is not afterwards revived by the discovery (»f another 
incident in tlie same frand.^ Nor can a contract be rescinded 
if the circumstances have in the meantime so far chanired that 
the parties cannot be restored to the position in which they 

' Gompcrtz V. Denton, 1 Cr. <k M. -^uT; " Campbell v. Fleming. 1 A. A E. 40; 

Load V. Green, 15 M. &. W. 2Jit. Sthvay v. Fogg, 5 il. «k W. 86. 

* 10. 



If the vendor hns taken the vendee's own notes, an ofTerto ntiini them 
at the trial is sufliciont. They need not be surrendered lui'ore bringing 
suit. Thurston r. IManchiird, 22 Pick. 18; Coghill r. Borinii, 15 Cul. 'M3; 
Duval r. Mowr}-, fi R. I. 471) ; Nichols r. Michaels, 23 N. Y. 2(54 ; Annstrong 
r. Tufts, G Barb. 432 ; Kcutgcn r. Parks 2 Sandf. 00; Ilathorn r. lIodi,'e3, 
28N. Y. 480; Armstrong r. Cushinjr, 43 Harl). 350; White r. Dodd^ 18 
Abb. 250; Stevens r. Hyde, 32 Barb. 171 ; Pcqueno r. Taylor, 3a IJarl> 

375. 

In case of a pale on credit, if there is any fraud on thi- |)art of the 
purchaser, which avoids the special contract, the vendor n>ay disregard 
the terms of credit, and liring an action immediately for the goods Bank 
r. Core, 15 Mass. 79; Wilson r. Fovet, Johns. 110; Both r. Palmer. 27 
Barb. 052 ; Kayser r. Sichel, 34 Barb. 84 ; French r. White, 5 Dutr, 250 ; 
Blii*s c. Cottle, 32 Barb. 322 ; Wigand t>. Sichel, 3 Kcyes, 120. 

A fraudulent rei>resentation of the quality and value of the thing sold 
fc.nuB no defense in a suit on a specialty. Tlie fraud that may b<' given 
in evidenee. under the i»lea of mm cd furdnn, must be coiilined to fraud 
that relates to the execution of the instrument; as, if a deed Im" fraud- 
ulently misread, and is executed under that imjjosition, or where there is 
a fraudulent substitution of one deed for another, and the |)arly"s signa- 
ture is obtJiine<l to a <leed which lie did not intend to exeeute. Dorr r, 
Munsdl, 13 Johns. 430; Franchot r. Leaeh, 5 Cow. 500; Champi«m r. 
Wiiite, 5 Cow. 509; Burrows r. Alter, 7 Mo. 424 ; Mordeei>i i. Tankersley, 
1 Ala. 100; Anderson r. Jolmson, 3 Sandf 1 ; MeKnight r. KeHett, 9 Geo. 
532; IIollv r. Young, 27 Ala. 203. Contrti, lla/.ard r Irwin, IS Pick. 05; 
Iloitt I. Iloleomb, 23 N. II. 535; Ilerrin r. Libbey, 30 Me. :!5(). 

Where the deft nsf set Up is frautl in the rontrnct of Mile, nput from 
nnv defect of title, and indei)endent of it. the defense may be made to an 



TiKMr.niRa. 329 

btood la'fure or at tlu; tiim- of the ciuitract.' * The ofTuot of 
tlic uvoidiiiict! ol" ail ai^nvoiiieiit on the irrniiiiil of iVaiiil, is tu 
[)hu-e the parlii's in (he siiine })ositiuii as if it had never been 
made; and all rights ^vhich are transferred or created hy the 
acfrecinent, are revested or diticliar^ed hv the avoidance. If, 
wlien it is a\nided, nothing; has oecun'ed lo alter the position 
of affairs, the rii^hts antl remedies of the j)ai"ties are the same, 
as if it iiad been Noid from tlie l)e<j^innin<^ ; but if any altera- 
tion lias taken ])iaee, their ri<^hts and remedies are subject to 
the ettect of that alteration." A contract, tliouj^h induced by 
fraud, eannot be avoided, if the rii,dits of an innocent vendee 
have in the meantime intoi'vened.^ If before disaffirmance, 
the goods or chattels have been resold or transferred, cither in 
whole or in part, to an innocent vendee, the title of such 
vendee is good against the original vendor."* So, also, where 
a negotiable instrument is obtained by fraud, the negotiation 
of the instrument gives a valid title to a transferee, who takes 



'Clarke v. Dickson, Kl. Bl. & El. = .sWa, pp. ^9, 312. 

148. * Wliite i: Gank-n, 10 C. B. 919; 

" Qncen r. Saddlers' Co., In H. L. IJO, Kin2:sforJ v. Merry, 11 Exch. C79, 1 II. 

per Blackburn, J. See Feret v. Hill, lo «k N. uu.'J. 
C. B. 207. 



action for the price of the land, although the defendant retains posflrssion. 
Andei'son r. Hill, 12 Smcd. 6c ]\Iar. 079; Concord Bank /•. Gregg, 14 N. 11. 
.331; Forster r. Gillam, l;5 Pcnn. 340; Gonlon r. Pannelec, 2 Allen, 212; 
Whittier v. Vose, 4 Shep. 403 ; Whitney r. Allaire, 4 Denio, .504. Contra, 
Cullam v. Branch Bank, 4 Ala. 21 ; Christian r. Scott, 1 Stew. 490 ; Stone 
V. Cover, 1 Ala. 287. 

An action for deceit will lie for false representations made upon the 
sale of land, and the fact that the deed does not contain a warranty cover- 
ing the ground of the representation is immaterial. Coon r. Atwell, 4GN. 
H. olO; AVhituey v. Allaire, 1 Comst. 30.j ; Culver r. Avery, 7 Wend. 380; 
Wade r. Sherman, 2 Bibb, 583. 

* Dcnncr r. Smith, 32 Vt. 1 ; Poor v. Woodburn, 25 Vt. 234 ; Buchanan 
c. Homey, 12 111. 336; Shaw r. Bamhart, 17 Ind. 183 ; Blen r. Bear Hivcr 
&c. Co., 20 Cal. G02; Jemison r. Woodruff, 34 Ala. 143; Kiiiuey c Kier- 
man, 2 Lans. 492 ; Pierce r. Wilson, 34 Ala. 590. 

22 



.T)0 i:r.Mi:iui:s. 

it witliout notice of tlic iVaiid.' Tpoii tlio Biiine luinciplc, 
wliero a man lias been imliiccMl to l»i"c"i»nic a sliarclioldor of a 
company, tlir(»ui;h the fraud ni' tlu' comjtany, lu' cannot by 
avoiilini; his contract with tlie conipany, ami repudiating his 
shares, evade liis liahility to crediturs of the ctunpany, who 
dealt with tlie company whilst he remained a shartdiolder. and 
who were not jiarties to the fraud.'' l^ut, althoui^h it may no 
longer be open to the party defrauded, from the change of cir- 
cumstaiu'es whicli have taken place in the meantime, to avoid 
the contract ujion the discovery of the fraud, he lias a remedy 
by action of deceit for damages against the ]»arty by whose 
misrepresentations lie lias been misled to his injury .^ 

The party defrauded may, insteail of rescinding the con- 
tract, stand to the bargain, even after he has discovered the 
fr*aud, and recover damages for the fraud, or he may recoup in 
damages if sued by the vendor for the price. The athrmance 
of a contract by the vendee after discovery of the fraud, merely 
extinguishes his right to rescind. His other remedies remain 
unimpaired.* " 

If a vendee discover that he is insolvent, and that it is not 
in iiis power to ])ay tor the goods, the c<iurts have allowed him 
to rescind the contract, and return the goods to the seller, with 
his assent, ])rovided he did so bef<»re the contract was consum- 
mated by an absolute delivery, and acce])tance, and provided 
it was done in g(»od faith, and not with the colorable design of 
favoring a j)articular creditor. lie cannot rescind the contract 

' BorbcT r. Uidmnls. Excl). 03; WostiTii Bank of Scotland f. Addle, L. 

May >'. (hnifmiin. It'. .M. «t W. :;:..1. \l. I. Sc. App. Cn. 107. 

•HindiTson I'. Koyiil Hriti.«Ii IJiuik, 7 ' Wliitiiey i'. Allnirc.4 Dcnio(Amor.V 

E. A II. '>i'>*'> ; I'owii I'. llardiiiL'. 1 <'. 15- 051. Sco Van Kpps v. ]larrim>n. 5 Hill 

N. S. r.»:j; Oukci* r. TunpiaiKl, L. li. U, ( AiiiiT.), OS ; 2 Kt-iil's ('omiii. -Ibit ; li6- 

App Ca. 3'2S. darrulf Hiir I)ol., vtl. I, p. UlS. 

• Clarke ». Dickson. Kl. Itl. it Kl. 1 1'.t; 



* Peck r. Brewer, 48 III. 55; Ilorem r. Lildicy. fin Me. H.'JO ; ^n^ltncy 
r. Allaire, 1 Conwt. liOO; Wciiucr c. lliiiKnt, ;J7 rriiii. 117; Ikrrin p. 
Libbty, :50 Mc. a.'iO. 



REMEDIES. 'SrA 

after tlic transit lias ceased, and the ^oods have been actually 
received in his possession, and the ri-^Iits of creditors have 
attached.^ 

If ^oods arc obtained IVoni the vendor by means of a Irand- 
ulent misrepresentation of the vendee as to his situation and 
circumstances, the vendor may elect to aihnn the sale, and huo 
for the price, or to avoid the sale and follow the goods, or the 
proceeds thereof, into the hands of a third jierson who has re- 
ceived them, without paying any new consideration."'' l>ut if he 
proceeds to judgment against the vendee after he is apprised 
of the fraud, his election is determined, and he cannot after- 
ward follow the goods into the hands of a third person on the 
ground of fraud.^ 

If the party by whose misrepresentation a transaction has 
been induced is not a party to the transaction, the transaction 
stands good, and cannot be avoided unless one of the parties to 
the transaction was implicated in the fraud.^ The party de- 
frauded has his remcdv l,)y action of deceit for damaires against 
the party who made the misrepresentations. 

If a specific chattel be sold under a warranty, and the prop- 
erty has passed to the purchaser, ho cannot return the chattel 
and claim back what he has paid, or resist an action for the 
price, on the ground of breach of warranty, unless there was a 
condition to that effect in the contract ; but must have recourse 
to an action for damages in respect of the breach of M-arrantv.* 
The case, however, is difierent if fraud can be shown. If a 



•Barnes v. FreelanJ, G T. R. SO; r.3r; Bank of Beioit i-. Beale, 7 TiflF. 

Richardson i«. Goss, 3 B. «fc P. 119; (Amcr.), 475. 

Ncatc V. Ball, 2 East, 117; Dixon r. ^ Masters v. Ibberson, 8 C. B. 100. 

Baldwin, 5 U>. 175; Salte v. Field. 5 T. * Street v. Blaj-, 2 B. it Ad. 4(V_>; 

R. 211. Dawsou V. Collis. 10 C. B. 523: BehD 

"Llojd t>. Brewster, 4 Paige (Amer.), v. Burness, 3 B. <& S. 755. 



* Powell r. Bradley, 9 G. & J. 220 ; llcnshaw v. Bryant, 4 Sciiui. 97 ; 
Bradbcrry v. Keas, 5 J. J. Marsh. 4-16. 



332 ri;mi:ihi;s. 

representation l»o made tVaiitliili-utly, tor tlu' imrjxtsc (tf indue- 
injj a party to enter into a eontract, tlie parly dctVauik'd is en- 
titled to avoid the contrnet on tlie ground of fraud, and may 
rceovcr )ta»k tlii' priec, notwithstanding the warranty of the 
same mattrr.' 

REMEDIES IN EQUITY. 

The common law. however, h:is not provided the courts of 
ordinary jurisdiction witli tin- nu-ans of enforcing the ppccific 
restitution or recovery of property in the ample manner that 
was afl'orded by the Roman law. If the execution of a deed 
or other instrument had been ol)taii\cd by fraud, or under such 
circumstances as to require that it should be cancelled and 
delivere<l uji, llie <'ourts ctf common law were incompetent to 
afibrd such a remedy, so that, at law, the i)arty defrauded 
miirht be left for an iiulefinite leui^th of time liable to have the 
instrument set up against him, when ])ossibly the evidence of 
the fraud might have become unattainable. Tlie necessity, 
therefore, for the extraordinary interference of the Court of 
Chancery, to aftbrd an adeipiate remedy, Iiecanu> manifest at a 
very early date.* 

The juri.sdiction ot the Court of Chancery, hy way of re- 
scinding transactions (»n the ground of Iraiid. is exercise<l either 
for the purpose of canci'lling exeriitorv agreements or of setting 
aside executed agreements, deeds, or conveyances. In tlie 

'.^trf.l V. Blay, 2 B. «t Ad. 102; Murruy v. Mauu, 2 Exclj. 638. 



• The fraud, which i.s tlic ^touikI for relief uj^ainst aconlraet, is fraud 
at the time of the execution of the instrument. Cheslennan r. (turtlncr, 5 
Johns. Ch. 29. 

When a Huit ha.H l)een instituteil hotli at hiw and in ei|iiity, the eoni- 
phiinant can not J)c re<juired to elect between the two actions Ix-fore the 
filin<; ot the answer. Abel r. Cuve. ',] 15. .M«>n. l')9; rreeni.-in r. Staut.s, 4 
ILd.'^t. Ch. 814. 



T^EMKDIKH. :'.?,3 

case of executory ap-eeiiK'i its, the rciiiity ol" rescission is fouii<l«(l 
<»u tlic injustice of Icavin^^ a ihmii exposed, it may be for an in- 
definite time, to liave a fraudulent instrument set nj) a;^'aiiist. 
him. It is nut cnouixh tliat he sliouM Ix; able to jtlead fraud 
in bar to an actiiMi, whenever an action is brouglit. Complete 
justice, as understood by e(»nrts of enuily, requires tbat the 
instrument sliould be delivered up and cancelled. In the case 
of executed agreements, deeds, or conveyances, the equity of 
rescission is founded on the injustice of ])ermitting a man who 
lias fraudulently appropriated the property of others to benefit 
by the fruits of his iniquity. Tliou^h pecuniary damages to 
be obtained at law might be, in some sense, a remedy, com- 
plete justice, as understood by courts of equity, requires that 
the transaction should be set aside and avoided.^ 

If a contract has been induced by fjilse representations, or 
a transaction is in any way tainted by fraud, and the defraud- 
ing party is a party to the transaction, the transaction will, 
even after conveyance and payment of the purchase-moneys, be 
set aside, if the nature of the case and the condition of the 
parties will admit of it;'^ or the defrauding party will be com- 
pelled to make his representation good.^" A man whose in- 

' Evans r. Eicknell, 6 Ves. 182; Case, 25 Bcav. 515 : Slim v Crouclier 1 

Blair v. Bromley, 2 Vh. 300. D. F. <fe J. 518. 

"Edwards v. M'Cleay, Coop. 308, ' Burrowcs v. Lock, 10 Ves. 475- 

S12, 2 Sw. 287; Berry v. Arinitstead, Pulsford v. llieliards, 17Beav. 87 96- 

2 Keen, 221 ; Lovell v. Hicks, 2 Y. tk Att.-Gen. v. Cox, 3 II. L. 240. See Ellis 

C. 4t>; Pulsford v. Kiclianls, 17 Beav. v. Colman, 25 Bcav. 673 
87, 96 ; Bell's Case, 22 Beav. 35 ; Ayre's 



♦Bacon v. Bronson, 7 Johns. Ch. 194; Bean r. Ilcrrick. 12 Me. 2(JJ ; 
Pollard V. Rogers, 4 Call, 2:39 ; Campbell r. Whittir.ghani, o J. J Mar-li 
96. 

Contract.s in regard to personal, as well as real property, may Ix; re- 
scinded. Bradberry r. Kcas, 5 J. J. 3Iarsh. 446 ; Runiph r. Abercronibie, 
12 Ala. 64 ; Taymon v. Mitchell, 1 Md. Ch. 496. 

A purchaser in the undisturbed possession of lan<l will not be relieved 
against the payment of the purchase money on the mere ground of defect 
of title, there being no fraud or misrepresentation. In such case he mu^st 



.^34 ni:Mi;nii:s. 

tiTost lias 1)0011 alTootoil l»y misroprosontatiuii, lia.s an etjuity to 
he plncetl in the same situatiini Jis if the fact reproseiitod were 
true.* If thoro is iidtliiii:; in tho I'.atiirc nt' tlio oase or the cini- 
«lition of llio i>artie8 to prevent the court from ^ettini^ the 
tnuiKiction sot aside, the ]»arty defrauded is entitled to have it 
set aside, and not merely to have the representation made 
ixood.' It is enough, in order to entitle him to have a trans- 
action set aside, to slmw a fi-audulcnt representation as to any 
part of that which induced him to enter into the contract 
which he seeks to rescind.^ 

The rule hcing that he who seeks eipiity must do ecpiity in 
matters arising out of the transaction in respect of which bo 

• Blair v. Broml -y. 2 Ph. 3t50. * Konnodv r. ranaran, <kc. Co. L. R. 

* Rawlins v. Wickhiim, 3 1). it J. 2, (.1 B. :,»j. 
322. 



seek his remedy at law upr)n the covenants If there is no franil nnd no 
covenants to secure title, he is without remedy ; as the vendor selling in 
^ood faith is not responsible for the goodness of his title beyond the ex- 
tent of his covenants in tlu- deed. Patton r. Taylor, 7 How. IX) ; Abbott 
r. Allen. 2 Johns. Ch. 52'2 ; Davis v. Bowland, 2 J. J. Maish. 27; Noonan v. 
Lee, 2 Blackf. 499. 

The question presenteil by an application lor a rescission is dilferent 
from that presented in an upjjlication for specific performance. Applica- 
tions to rescind must abide the result one way or the other of the stern 
proof of frau<l. In the absence of all proof of »>ifj'j>»tit/itlM or 8ii/>preM>io 
rm, parties must abide by their contracts. Mm .y r. Eater, :) Ihunph. 
3i7. 

If the fraud relates to the title to proiK-rty, it may be removed by a ten- 
der of a ^'ood and valid dee<l ut any time before decree in the absence of 
proof of (-ixcial d;imago. Boyee r. (Jrinuly, :] Pet. 210; Davidson v. Moss, 
.". How. (.Miss.) (57:5; Hunt r. MeConnell, 1 Mon. 222; WieklilTe r. Lee, 
B. Mon. 5J:J; Kvans r. Boiling. 5 Ala. TmO; Ayres r. .Mitchell, :5 Smed. & 

Mar. am. 

If the frauil relates to the (juantity of land, tlie purchaser may bo re- 
lieved from paying for the chficiency. M'C'oun r. Delancy, :J Bibb, 40 ; 
.loppinu r. Dorley, 1 Yer^. 2H9. 

If tin; fraud consisls in pulling at an auction cale. the excess may be 
decreid to In- refim<led. Veazie r. Williams, S How. IIU. 

If the defect of title lelat s mily to a su)all portion of the property 



ki:mi:i)1i:s. 335 

Bceks relief,^ tho court will not rcsciiul !i transaction unless the 
party ui^aiiist wlioiii relief is sought can be remitted to the 
position in which ho stood antecedently to or at the time of 
the transaction. '** On setting aside a transaction, the court 
proceeds on the ^r(jun(l that, as the transaction never ought to 

' Ilnnson r. Keating, 4 Ha. 1 ; Nee- * Hanson v. Kcatin'^, 4 Ila. 1; 

Boni V. ( larksoii, th. 101; Sober v. Headeii c ICiiii;, '.» Ha. UM; Savery w. 

Kemp, f. 11a. ICiK; Wilkinson J'. Kowk.'s, Kini;. 5 H. L. r,27; Western Hank of 

!• Ha. 593; Gibson w. GoMsniid, 5 J>. Scotliind v. Addie, L. It. 1, Sjc. App. 

M. *fc G. 757. Ca. 102. 



whirh did not constitute an inducement to the purchaser, it is more equit- 
able to decree compensation than to rescind the contract. Buck v. Mc- 
Cauglitry, 5 Mon. 216; Tomlinson v. Savage, 6 Ired. Eq. 430. 

Equity will not decree compensation for fraud in a sale when the 
vendee retains the property. The remedy is at law. Stone v. Kamsay, 4 
Mon. 2:50 ; Cocke r. Hardin, G Litt. 374. 

The contract may be rescinded for fraud in relation to the title, al- 
thouudi there is a covenant of warranty. Woods v. North, C Humph. 309 ; 
Engli.sh i\ Benwood, 25 Miss. 1G7 ; Prout v. Roberts, 32 Ala. 427 ; More- 
land V. Atchinson, 19 Tex. 303. 

It is not necessary that there should be an eviction under an outstand- 
ing title. Parkham v. Randolph, 4 How. (Miss.) 435 ; Napier c. Elam, C 
Ycrg. 108. 

A vendee can not buy in an outstanding title, and assert it against the 
vendor. All he Lj entitled to is a repayment of the money paid out. 
Hardeman v. Couan, 10 Smed. & Mar. 4S6 ; "Westall v. Austin, 5 Ired. 
Eq. 1. 

Abandonment of possession is not a necessary prerequisite to entitle 
the party to recover. Young r. Harris, 2 Ala. 108; Collee r. Newsom, 2 
Kelly, 442 ; Foster v. Gersett, 29 Ala. 303 ; Garner r. Lcorett, 32 Ala. 410. 

The vendee, upon rescission, must ofler to return tliL' property. 3Iorc 
V. Smedburgh, 8 Paige, GOO ; Duncan v Jeter, 5 Ala G04 ; Abel r. Cave, 9 
B. Mon. 159; Bruen c. Hone, 2 Barb. oS^j; ?.ratta o. Henderson, 14 La. An. 
473. 

* Garland r. Bowlini;, 1 Hemp. 710; Johnson v. Jones, 13 Smed. & 
Mar. 580; Pintard t\ Martin, 1 Smed. ct 3Iar. Ch. 12G; Cunningham r. 
Fithian, 2 Gilman, G50 ; Carroll r. Rice, 1 "Walk. Ch. 373. 

The fact that the parties cannot be put precisely in st<itu quo as to the 
tfubject- matter of the contract will not jircclude a decree for the rescission 
of the contract. If it would, an executed contract nevci- could be rcscin<led 
by a decree of a court, for the parties never could be thus placed. Galling 
r. Newell, 9 Ind. 572. 



'>oO 



i;i;Mr.iiii;s. 



liavo taken }>l;ii;i', tlif rii,'lits of the ji.irtios aiv, as tar as possible, 
to bo placed in the same 8ituation in which they would have 
stood if there had lu'ver been any such transaction.' If the 
party defrauded has, by his own act, j»ut it out of his power ti> 
replace the j)arty a^^ainst whom relief is soui,dit in the position 
in which he stood at the time of the trajisaction,' or if third 
parties, without notice of the fraud, have in the meantime ae- 
iiuired ri;rhts and interests in the matter,' there can be no re- 
scission ; and nothing remains to the party defrauded but u 
reparation in damai^es.^ Rescission of a transaction or contract 
cannot in gener.il be had, unless the party seeking it is able 
himself to rescind it in toto?* Under special circumstances, a 
transaction may be partially rescinded; but the court will 
never adopt such a course unless it can see clearly that no in- 
justice will be done.' If the transaction is severable, inability 
to rescind it as to part is not fatal to the right to rescind it as 
to another part.' The fact, for instance, that a man who has 



' Bellamy v. Sabine, 2 Ph. \ir^. 

* Nicoll's ('US', 3 D. .k J. TiST; 
Mixer's ( a.«c, 4 1>. «t J. 586. 

' ScholHeUl V. Tiiii|.lcr. 4 I). A J. 
42y ; Oakes r. Turquand, L. U. 2, Aj.p. 
Ca. ST.I. 

* Mixer's Case, 4 D. & J. 58i'.. 

* liousun V. Keutin;r, 4 11 a. 1 ; Clarke 



V. Dickson, El. Bl. tt El. 148; M:\turi:» 
V. Tmlenniok, 12 W. K. 7H»; Wo.-terii 
Biuik of Scotland v. Addle, L. U. 1. Se. 
Apji. Ca. Iti2, siifira. 

» Bradl.y v. Bosl.-v. 1 Barb. (Amcr.). 
12.V 

' .Matiiriii i'. Treditinick, 12 W. \\. 
74(1. 



* GoMon r. M:iiiiiin,2 J. J. M;irsli. 230; Clay r. Tumor, :i Bibb, 52. 

The general rule is, that where the whole contract is contaminated with 
fraud, and tin- parties can be placed in Htatu quo, the contract may be 
reminded. Where that <-an not be done, or where the injured party is un- 
willing to Jiave it done, then the party a'^LTrievcd niust seik iiis redrcs.s 
e.\elusively at law. Caldwell r. Calilwdl, 1 .1. J. .Mar-li. 'i'.\; i'iiitanl r. 
Martin, 1 Hmed. it .Mar. Ch. 120. 

A vendee may liavc the contract fiet nnide, or compensation for a defect 
fraudulently concealed from him. The courts will not re-^cind a part only 
of an entire contnict. Joplin r. Docdiy, 1 Yerj;. 280; (tiassell r. Thomas, 
:! I.ei^'h. 1 1:5 ; Ilojfe r. Kvanx, 1 Smed. ic Mar. Ch H»') ; Step r. Alkire, 3 
A. K. Marsh, 257 ; Prewilt r. Graves, Ti J. J. Marsh. 111. 



iiE:\rEi)iKS. 337 

been induced l>v iVainl to j)urclias(! sliarcs in a ]>:irticiilar cmih. 
])Hny, may liavo sold sumo of the sliarun hefore discovering the 
fraud, will not dc])rive liim of the rii,dit toliave the transaction 
as to the reniainini^ shares rescinded!* X(U* is the inal^ility of 
a man to resriml a transaction as a whole I'atal to his rijrht of 
rescission, if his inability to do so is attrihiitahle to the partv 
against Avhom he seeks relief. If the latter lias entangled and i 
com[)licated the sul)ject of the transaction in s'lch a manner as 
to render it impossible that he should be restored, the party 
defrauded may, on doing whatever it is in his power to do, 
have the transaetioii rescinded.- So also, it is no ol)jection to 
the rescission of a transaction for the purchase of shares ob- 
tained by fraud that the shares have fallen in value since the 
date of the transact ion.^f Nor is a man, if the property is of a 
])erisliable nature, bnund to keep it in a state of preservation 
until bill filed.'':}: Ilis only duty is to do nothing with the 
]»roperty after the bill filed; and in cases where damage is 
likely to occur, and might be prevented, he ought, perhaps, to 
give intimation to the defendant, leaving him to do what he 
pleased.' A party seeking to set aside a sale of shares, is not 
bound to pay calls on them to prevent forfeiture after filing 
his bill.* It is not fatal to his right of rescission that some of 
the shares may have been forfeited for non-payment of calls 
since bill filed.' 

A sale, however, of several kinds of shares in one transac- 
tion cannot be set aside for misrepresentation, if the person 
seeking relief is unable to restore all the shares he has taken. ^ 

' Maturin v. TreJennick, 12 W". R. * 5I;iturin v. Tredcnnick, 2 X. R. 

740. 514 ; 4 N. R. 15 ; 12 W. R. 740. 

" Masson v. Bovet, 1 Denio (Amer.), ' Jl>. 

09. " Jb. 

» Blake v. Mo watt, 21 Beav. 613. ^ lb. • Jb, 



* Shackloford v ILindy, 1 A. K. Man«h. 49.j. 
t Ycazie r. Williams. 8 How. 134. 
\ Scott r. Porriu, 4 Bibb, 3G0. 



338 RKMKDir.S. 

% 
Whc'tlu'r the c-li:ini:o of a c<iiii|t;iny ih>\n nn iii(or|»oratcd 

inti» a i-urjH»rate uut", lor the iiuii' juirpose ot' iiioro lonvcnicntly 
wiiuliiii; up its atlairs, n-iKk-rs r(.'>titutioii imprac-ticalik', is a 
ditlicult <jiK'stion. In Clarke v. Dic-k.'Jun,' a niiiiiii<^ coii»j»aiiy 
was, with tlie ]»hiiiititi"s consent, rei;istereu as a cM»nij»any with 
limited liahility, and was wound uj) under the AVindini^-up Act. 
Jn an action lor nioin'v had and rtni'lvid, to ncoM-r hack the 
amount paid lor the purchase of the shares, th*; court held the 
action not maintainaltle. Erie, C. J., said : "lie has changed 
the nature of the article; the shares he received were shares in 
a company, on the cost-book j)rincij>le ; the plaintiff offers to 
restore tlieni atU-r he l:as converted lluiu into shares in a joint- 
stock company." The cases show tliat there is no distinction 
betwec-n cases where the question arises between an alkyed 
shareholder and the creditors of a company, and wlien it arises 
between a company and a ])erson who has fraudulently been 
induced to become a shareholder.^ In Henderson v. Lacon,^ 
however, Wood, L. J., held that a man who had been induced 
by the false representations of the directors ot a company to 
take shares in the comi)any, might, if his bill was liled before 
an order for winding up was made, sustain a suit for the recov- 
ery ot" his moneys, notwithstanding tlie company was being 
Wound up. So also, it was held by the Lords Justices in 
Smith's Case, /iV Heese Iliver Co.,* that it a bill be liled to set 
asiiit' a transa('ti(»n on the ground of false re])resentat ion, before 
a winding-up ordi-r has been made, a man is entitled to relief, 
notwithstanding a snl».>c'(ju(.'nt winding-uj) order. The apj>liea- 
tion in this case was made under the winding up. In the 
former case, judgment was given on the bill. 

If the parties to the transaction cannot be restored to tiicir 



• i:i. HI. A- Kl. HO. ' L. K. r.; ]:<\. 2iV2. 

» WcHliTM iJnnk of Srntlond i- AdJlo, * I.. K. '.I; « li. .\]<\<. Odl. 

L. H. 1, Sc. Apii. Cu. 107. 



REMKDirS. 339 

t 

ori^nnal condition, tlic Iransaction Btands good, and cnniot ho 
rescinded. Tlic party defrauded inu.stseek redress in an action 
on the ease at law for the fraud, or, if lie is sued on the cxn- 
traet, lie may reeou}) in (hinia^es.* 

li' the false representation hy whic]i a contract has been 
induced was not niado fraudulently, but was made through 
mistake or misiipprehension, and the subject-matter of the con- 
tract, though different in some regi)ects and in certain incidents 
from what it was represented to be, is not so diflerent in sul)- 
stance from what it Mas represented to be as to amount to a 
failure of consideration, the transaction will not be set aside, it 
the party who made the representation is willing to give com- 
pensation for the variance,^ and the variance is such as to admit 
of compensation by a pecuniary equivalent.^ If, however, the 
misdescription of the property is such that it cannot be estimated 
by a pecuniary equivalent, there is no case for compensation, 
and the transaction will be set aside.'* 

If the person by whose fraudulent misrepresentation a 
transaction has been induced, is not himself a party to the 
transaction, the transaction stands good and cannot be rcjtudi- 
ated, if the other i>arty to the transaction has not been party 
or privy to the fraud.'* The party defrauded must seek re- 
dress in an action in the case at law, for damages against the 
party of whose fraud he complains.^ If, for instance, a man 



' Kinjr ti. ITamlct. 2 M. <t K. 456; Ben v. 612. See Ilowlnnd v. Xorris, 1 

Great Luxemburg Railway Co. v. Mag- Cox. CI. 

nay, 25 Boav. 5)S7. ' Tulsford v. Bicliards, 17 Benv. 95; 

" Sec Dyer v. llargrave, 10 Ves. 507; Duranty's Case, 2tj Beav. 270; Worth's 

Hill t'. Buckley. 17 Yes. S95 ; Martin Casi-. 4"l)rt\v. 529; A'e Felgatu's Case, 

I'. Cotter, 3 J. 'it L. 49(5; Shaekli-ton v. 2 ]>. .T. it S. 450. 

Suiclitr.', 1 Dog. & S. C20; Tulsford v. " Wliitniorc v. Mackeson, 16 Beav. 

Richards, 1 7 Beav. 96. 1 2S ; I'ulstord i-. Richards, 1 7 Beav. 95 ; 

' Infra, pp. 362-366. Ellis v. I'olman. 25 Beav. 673. See 

♦ Leyland v. lllingworth, 2 D. F. it. J I'a.-^lcy v. Freeman, 3 T. R. 52. 
248; Earl of Durham t-. Legard, 34 



* Applcton r. Ilorton, 25 Me. 23; Lcc v. Vanghan, 1 Cil'b, 235. 



•'10 REMKim.S. 

lias lii'iMi iiuhicid l»v tlic \'.\\>r n'|ir(>ciit:itiniis of a lliinl parfv 
to tleal with aiioflur. In- caniint have tlic tran.-artii»u n-sciiided, 
if the otluT i>arty ti» the transaction has nut Ixcn partv or privy 
to the false re]»resentation.' ]Ie ninst seek redress in an action 
oil the case at law, against tlio jjarty hy whose fal. e rejiresenta- 
tions he has been induced to deal.* - So, also, if a man has 
heen induced to take shares from a company hy iVaudiilcnt mis- 
representations made l»y seme ]»crs<.n, n<.t hy an ai^cnt of the 
company, anthori/ed to make any representations or authorized 
to deal on behalf of the comi)any, he is hound by his contract 
with the company, and cannot liave it rescinded. He must 
seek redress in an actitui on the case at law ai^ainst the person 
who made the representation.' So, also, if a man has been 
induced to buy shares in a comj>any from a shareholder, on 
false and fraudulent representations nuule to him by the seller, 
the company not being a party or privy to the fraud, he is not 
entitled to have the transfer set aside as ])etween himself and 
the company, or to restrain the company from making calls on 
him, whilst he is a shareholder. Ilis remedy is against his 
vendor, to comi)el him to accept a re-transfer of the shares, and 
for an indemnity for the losses he has sustained in consequence 
of having taken the shares.'' 

Cases in which a man has been induced by false representa- 
tions to purchase shares directly from a com])any, must be dis- 
tinguished from cases in which the transaction is not with the 
compan}', but is between two individuals, meeting in the mar- 
ket and dealing for their private interests, like the seller and 



' l*ul«f'>rd r. Kiolinrdfi, 17 I5cnv. I'S; * Seo Stninlmnk v. Vvrn]<^\, 9 Sim. 

Ilurnnty'HCuJH', '2<'> Ik-av. '.£71. n.'.rt ; SiKlcn v. C.iniHll. Id Sim. .'iS, 7'.» ; 

» Jb. ' Miitnriii r. Tn-.i.-iiiiii k. •.• .\. IJ. MJ ; 4 

' UrfM-kwfU'H Chw?, 4 Drew, '.in.'); Ni- N. K. l.'.; i»ur:iiity'n < iisr. 'ir. Hmv. '271, 

coH's CiuK-, 8 D. <t J. 4'i7. '.i7a ; WorUiu Cuao, 1 Drew. b2\i. 



* Woodman r. Frofinaii, So Me. HM. 



REMEDIES. '.}\\ 

purchaser of* transferable shares. If a in:in he iiKhiccrl hv 
false representations on tlic jiart of the (lirectors of a compiiny, 
to purchase shares in the company from an actual shareholder, 
%vho has not been himself a party or privy to the false repre- 
sentations, the shares cannot be forced back on the v(.'ndor, be- 
cause on his part the transaction has been Jo/ja ^Vd, nor can 
the transaction be set aside as between the purchaser of the 
shares and the company ; for the contract has been between in- 
dividuals, and the company stands in point of law in the rela- 
tion of a third party. Tlie purchaser of the shares must seek 
his remedy at law against the parties by M'hose false representa- 
tions lie has been misled.^ 

All that equity can do where a man has been induced to 
enter into a transaction by the false and fraudulent representa- 
tions of a person who is not a party to the transaction, is to 
make him make good his assertion as far as is possible.^ And 
the court can do this in many cases. "Where, according-ly, upon 
a treaty for marriage, a person, to whom the intended husband 
was indebted, was asked by the father of the lady to make out 
a list of the debts of the intended husband, and, in doing so, 
omitted the debt which was due to himself, on the representa- 
tion made to him by the intended husband, that, if the debt 
were disclosed, the marriage would be prevented taking place, 
he was, after^the marriage, restrained by perpetual injunction 
from enforcing the debt against the husband.^ So, also, where 
upon a treaty of marriage, a brother, in order to make it ap- 
pear that his sister had a fortune of £500, whereas she had only 
£350, gave her a sum of £150, so as to make up £500, and she 

' Durnnty's Case, 26 Bcav. 273, 274 ; 17 Bcav. 229 ; Stephens v. Venftblos, ."?! 

Inplis V. Lumsden, 21 l)ec. of Ct. of Beav. 127; Yeonians »v Willi;im-<, L. R. 

Session, 2d series, 200. See Worth's 1 Eq. IS."); Comi). Ellis i'. Cohiian, 2.% 

Case, t Drew. Hi'.h Beav. ^u^^. 

' Tulsfoi-d V. Richards. 17 Beav. 87, ' Neville r. Wilkinson, 1 Bro. C. C. 

9,5. See llobbs r. Norton, 1 Vcrn. 13.5 ; .543. See Dalbiac v. Dulbiac, 16 Ves. 

Arnot V. Bi.*coe, 1 Ves. 9.5; Burrowes 124; Vau.\hall Bridge Co. v. Lord 

I'. Lock, 10 Ves. 470; Bushby v. Ellis; Spencer, Jac. 07. 



'M'2 iti:Mi:itii:s. 

ii'ave liim ii lunul lur tlic aiii(»unt, ami tlu' iiiarriai^i' ttxik jilaco 
upon tlie faith of tlie re]>rt'sc'ntatioJi, it was lii-M that tlic hond 
couhl imt lie cnloiri'd, ami it was (tnleri'tl tu lit- dt'liviTC'd up to 
he cancelled.^ So, also, wlurr a man had made ft false repre- 
scntati(»n as to the value of ]»roperty, which he had agreed to 
char-^e as security for another ])erson, his re])resentatives were 
lield boun«l to make it fjood.* So, also, where a nuirriage was 
contracted, ami a settlement made on the faith of representa- 
tions hy the executor of a will, under w lii«-h a certain sum of 
money was left to the intended husban<l, that the leirJicy was 
substantial and safe and would be ])aid at a future time, the 
estate of the executor was held to liave thereliv become in- 
debted for the wli(de amount.^ So, also, where a father pre- 
viously to the marriage of his daughter, promises to the in- 
tended husband to leave her a sum of money, and the ])romisc 
amounts to a distinct engagement or undertaking, and the mar- 
riage takes place on the faith of such representation, the court 
will give efiect to it against the estate of the father.* So, also, 
the trustee of a fund, who, having received notice of an in- 
cundtrance on the fund, had re]>rescnted to a creditor of the 
beneficiary that the fund Avas unincund)ered, and that the ben- 
eficiary had a right to nuike an assignment, was held bound to 
make up the deticiency.' So, also, a solicitor mIio has made to 
Ins client untrue representations respecting a property on which 
his client is about to advance money, may be compelled to 
make good his re])resentations.^* 

' CJnle V. Liniiii, 1 Vcni. 47.'>. Sco Alt. 4 CiilT. SI. Si-i' .laiiirSDn v. Stein, 

MoMt.-tiori V. M<>ntifi<iri. 1 W. HI. 3(i3. 21 1'n'nv. .'. ; Kny v. Crook, .'{ Sm. tt (;. 

Iiitjrnm v. TlioriK-, 7 Ila. fi?. 407 ; Trolc v. So.uly. 2 (JitT. 1 ; Stojihens 

* Hiitlon I'. UohKittr. 7 D. M. ct (i. 0. v. VciiiiIiIih, III IJ.iiv. lis. 

« HiiinnuTxIi-y V. !)«• Hi< I, 12 CI. A. •IJiirrowoH c. Lock, lo Vrs. 470; 

Fin. 4.'»; Iliirkw<»rlli r. Youn;,'. 4 Drew. .Slim v. CroiicluT. 1 1>. V. A ,]. 618. 
1 ; MauHMll f. Iloel;;.-. 4 H. L. In.;.!; • Clolond r. Lncli, 5 Ir. Cli. 478. 

Luvir V. FIfldcr, H'l Ikav. 1 *'* ■ 



• Bacon c. Johnson, 7 John;*, Cli. 191. 



REMEDIES. aio 

'riiiiiii,'li, wlicro (iiic pfixdi states a fact to lie true, on tlic 
faitli of wliieli auotlier actn, a court of equity will often eom- 
])el liini to make his assertion ^ood, it does ui^t follow that 
M'here a man has <;iven a f^cneral character re8j)ectin<^ another, 
tlie person to whom the representation was made can come 
into equity to compel liini to make good Iiis r(i)resentation. 
Tliongli a person who misrepresents the character or the credit 
of another, is liable for the damage occasioned by such rej)rc- 
sentation, the amount can only be determined in a court of 
law by an action for damages.^ 

The rules with respect to sales by the court are not less 
sti-iiigent than in ordinary cases.^ If a sale has taken place 
under a decree of the court, and there has been false represen- 
tation or undue concealment in the conditions or particulars of 
sale, or a good title cannot be shown, the sale will be set aside 
if application be made before conveyance is executed.^ If the 
conveyance be executed, the purchaser must take the conse- 
quences, and can only rely on the covenants.^ 

The court will not rescind a transaction without requiring 
the party in whose favor it interferes, to restore the party 
against whom relief is sought, as far as possible, to that which 
shall be a just situation, with reference to the rights which he 
held antecedently to the transaction.^* The terms on which a 



' Whitmore t-, MacTceson, 16 Ecav. ■'Thomas v. Powell, 2 Cox, 394; 

128. irCulicich V. Grt'irory. 1 K. «t J. 28(i. 

' Lachlan »•. Reynolds, Kay, 55. '' Bi-ilamy v. Sabine, 2 I'h. 425 ; King 

' 76. McCulloch V. (ireaory, 1 K. & v. fcjavery, 5 II, L. 027. 

J. 28fi. Sec Ward v. Tratlie, 14 Sim. 

82; Linehan v. Cotter, 7 Ir. Eq. 176. 



* The rules of law relatintj to ppccilic performnnee and those applied 
to the rescission of contracts, altl)ou';h not identically the same, have 
a near athnity for each other. Boyce t. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210; Beck r. 
Simmons, 7 Ala. 71 ; 'Walker v. Collins, 11 Ohio. 31: Jackson r. Ashton, 
11 Pet. 229. 

Merc deterioration of the property is no objection to a rescission of the 



:m 1 



UEMKDIKP. 



transactii>n will bf ivstiinKil \aiv uitli tlu' i>!irtic'ular circum- 
stances of the case. In smnc cases deeds liavc l»een absoluldv 
rescinded* l»v the cuiirt dt'crccini; tlieni to In- delivered iij» tn 
be eanci'lK'(l ; ^ but the usual cdur.-e (.f the cnuit in setting 
aside a transaction, is to j>roceed on the maxim, that, he who 
seeks etinity must do eciuity.^ Instruments, acct»rdingly, are 
either set aside on rcj)ayment of the actual consideration with 
interest thereon at a reasonable rate,** or are dii-ected to stan<l 
as a security for the moneys actually advanced, with interest 
thereon at a reasonable rate,"* (.>r for what uj>on investigation 
shall be ascertained to be really due.^f If the i)roi)erty is 
personal, a decree for the repayment of moneys, or the delivery 
up and cancellation of the instrument, will be comj)lete relief. 

' Bates f. Graves, '2 Yes. Jr. 'JS7. .Miirlh<>n>iiL')i. 2 Rw. ICfi; IVncock i-. 

* h«ec Juckwan v. Mitchell, 13 Yes. Kvnns, Id Vcs. 512; ('olcl<iiii;h r. IJol- 
680. per, 4 Dow. CI; Kin«; v. Iliiiiilet, 2 M. 

» Wilkinson v. Fowkes, Ha. 594. tV K. 4r.G; 3 CI. it Hn. 21S; Karl of 

* r.arnaili-ton v. Lingood, 2 Atk. Alilboroimh v. Trye, 7 CI. tt I'in. 4:;(>, 
13.T; Lawley »'. Hooper, 3 Atk. 278; 4f.2; Carter i-. Palmer. 8 Cl. it Fin. 
Gwynne t-. 'lleaton, 1 Bn>. C. C. 1 ; t)57, 11 I'.ligli, 397; liilla^e r. yoiitluc. 
Lovell V. Hicks, 2 Y. A C. 55; Wilson 9 Ha. 64(»; Baker v. Bradley, 7 D. .M. 
V. Short, G Ha. 384; Ingram v. Thorp, ik (J. 597; Croft v. Graham,* 2 1). J. it 
7 Ha. G7. y. 155. 

' I'roof r. Hines, Forrest, 111 ; Crowe 'Wharton ». May, 5 Yes. 27; Tur- 

f. liallard, 3 Bro. C. C. 120; Newman edl r. Macnamiira. II Y.-s. 91 ; Watt r. 

V. Payne, 2 Yes. Jr. 199; Byne »'. (Jrove, 2 Seh. it Lef. 492; Longniate c. 

Yivian, 5 Yci 604; Davis v. ])uke of Ledger, 2 Giff. 157. 



contract. Vcazie r. WilliamB, 8 How. 134; Buck r. McCaughtny, 5 Mon. 
210; Glover r. Smith, 1 Dessau. 4:j:}. 

^VIle^ n portion of the proijciiy has ptu^sed to the liands of a houa Jh/t 
holder, the court may enter a (Uci>ec against the defcnchuit for its value, 
and compel a surrender of the balance. McNeil r. Turner, Munf. 310. 

A decree for a rc«ci8>ion of tiie contract without a restoration of the 
property, is erroneous. C'ani])lin i. Burton, 2 J. J. Marsii. "J Hi; \Yatera r. 
Lemmon, 4 Ohio, 229. 

A vendee wIk) has Bought in nn adverse claim rannot olitain a rescijv- 
Bion of the contract without surrendering tlie j)roperty. (Jrundy r. Jack- 
son, 1 Litt. 11. 

• Gardner r. Ogden, 22 N. Y. 327 ; WellO.rd r. {•han(el!..r, r, Gratt. 39; 
Miles r. lr>in, 1 Mc( ord'H Ch. 524. 

f Smith r. Lansing, 22 N. Y. 520; Owing*« Case, 1 I'.I.md, I'.TO ; <'urii<: 
r. Coules, Bo3W. 452. 



remki)ii:h. 315 

iiltliouf^li the legal interest ylionM have been eoiiveycfl.* iJut 
if tlio Bubject-matter of the transaction he real Chtate, it it* 
nsual to direct a reconveyance, hecanse if tiii.s in not done, a 
• piestion may arise as to what has l)econie of the real estate.'^ 
if, however, the deed is not merely voidable, but wholly void, 
no reconveyance is neces>ary.' 

The terms on which a reconveyance will be ordered, are 
the repayment of the purchase-moneys and all sums laid out 
fn improvements and repairs of a permanent and substan- 
tial nature, by which the ])resent value is imj)roved, with 
interest thereon Irom tlie times when they Avere actually di.- 
bursed.* On the other hand, chai-u'es fur the deteriorati(jn of 

'See 1 Ves. 370; Willinrasoii v. Clnrk c llalpns, 31 L. J. Ch. 096 ; but 

(lihon, 2 Sch. «t Lef. 357; Enstabrook see lloi^liton ;•. IIoi;liton. 15 Bt-av. 278; 

I'. Scott, 3 Vfs. 455; Cooper v. Joel, 1 Alt. Gen. t'. Magdalen College, 18 Beav. 

B. F. <fe J. 240 ; Slim v. Croueher, ib. 255 
620. ^ Ogilvie v. JeafTreson, 2 G iff. 381. 

"Pickett r. LuiX'-uu, 11 Ve.s. 231; 



* Hardinsc v. Handy, 11 Wheat. 103; Brooke r. Berrj-, 2 Gill, 83> 
Moselcy v. Buck, 3 :>runf. 232; Tvler t). Black, 13 How. 230; Glass r. 
Brown, G Mon. 3"j(> ; Ellis r. Graves, ~) Dana, 111) ; Bullock r. Beemi.-^, 1 A. 
K. :Marsli. 433 ; Caklwcll r. Wliito, 5 J. J. Marsli. 207. 

If the vendee buys up a better title than that of the vendor, and the 
vendor is not guilty of fraud, he can only be compelled to refund to the 
vendee the amount paid for the better title and a reasonable compensation 
for trouble and expenses. Galloway r. Finlcy, 12 Pet. 2G4. 

The i)urcbascT will not be compelled to account for rent when he is 
liable to others for it. Glass r. Brown, G Mon, 3.j0. 

The use of the property by the vendee is generally held to balance the 
interest on the purchase money. Talbot r. Subree, 1 Dana, oG ; Williams 
V. Rogers, 2 Dana, 374 ; Williams v. Wilson, 4 Dana, 507. 

Tho rule docs not apply to unproductive lands. Shields r. Bog- 
liolo, 7 Mo. 134. 

A grantee, in case of constructive fraud, is not responsible for profits. 
When, however, there is actual fraud, the grantee may be charged with 
profits. Backhouse v. Jetts, 1 Brock, 500. 

There is nc instance of any reimbursement or indemnity aflbrdcd by a 
court of equity to a particcps criminis in a case of positive fraud upon 
creditors. Sands r. Codwisc, 4 Johns. 33G; Borland r. AValker. 7 Ala. 2G9; 
White r. Graves, 7 J. J. :>Lirsli. 523: Weedon r. Ilawes. 10 C t. 50. 



:)X 



REMr.niKS. 



the property mufit he pit oft' nj^'nin.-t ilir allownncep f«»r perma- 
nent improvements. Tlie p:irty in ].(.ssc'>-f-i(«ii nni.-t also 
neeount li>r all nnts ri-crivcd \<y liim and ItT all j)n)lits, such 
as moneys arisin*^ from the Kile of timher, or from Morkin^ 
mines, with interest thereon, from the times of the receipt 
thereof. lie must also pay an occupation rent for siich part of 
the estate as may have hem in his actual possession.* Allow- 
ance for lastiufif imju-ovements can only be for such as were 
made durinji: the period of accounting!: for tlie nuts.' The 
account of rents and jirofits on the one side, and of lasting 
improvements on the cither, must he carried hack t.. the same 
time.' The di'crec is erroneous if it directs the acct»unt of 
rents and i)rolits to he<,'in at one time, and the account of 
lastiui? improvements at another, unless there is some special 
reason for doing so.* The party in i)ossession would also, it is 
conceived, he reriuired to reinstate premises which he had ma- 
terially altered ; c. g. a private residence into a shop." 



» Snvnge r. Tnylor. Forn-st, 204 ; 
AttJJen. r. Biilliol Collc'<je. '.> Mod. 
412; York r-uiKliiifjs Co. v. M'Kt'nzio, 
:{ I'nt. Sc. Ajip. ("a. U'.tS, r.Tft.IJ Koss'b L. 
C. Sc. liO'i; Wnnl r. llnrtpolc, cit. 3 
Uli^jh, 470; Kx-parU Ilii;;lics, 6 Yes. 
git'; Kx-]>artf licnnett, ID Vl-s. K81 ; 
Murrny v. Tnlmor, 2 Sch. &. Lef. IHO; 
Ldwanla v. M'Clcay. Coop. :i<i8, 2 Sw. 
2.S7; iJoiioviin v Frickcr, Jnc. Ifi.'i; 
Trcvtlvaii I'. ( liartcT. 4 L. J. < li. N. S. 
214 ; 'irevdviiti f. Wliite 1 Iknv. SSS ; 
Mulliollin «. Murum. :J Dr. A Wur.S:;?; 
(;il.M)n t'. irilstf, 2 Y. tt (". {". C. BSl ; 
Millr. Hill, :i 11. L. b'JH; Duvcy v \h\v- 
rant, 1 D. i J. &M ; Tyrrell v. JJuuk of 



London, 10 TT. L. 2^; Stopnev v. Bid- 
diili.h, i:? W. K. i-)7») ; .'. N. "U. 506; 
l)aliy V. Woiiliain, lili Bcav. 102. Seo 
Ihiuyjlns I'. Culvcrwfll. 31 L. .1. I'll. 
.')4;{; Cooper v. I'hibbs, L. U. 2 Ai)p. 
Cn. 171. 

' Att.-Gen. t'. Karl of Craven, 21 
Bonv. 411. 

• Nocsoni I'. Clarkson, 4 Hn. 103. 

* 11). See ns to allowance for im- 
provonu-nt.s of cliarily jiropi-rty, Alt.- 
(icn. c. Ki-rr, 2 licav. 42'.i; Alt.-LJoii. i'. 
MiuxdiiKn Coll.-c. 18 Boav. 264; Att.- 
(u-n. r. Davcy. W* Buav. r.27. 

' I'onovan v. Frickcr, Jac. 105. 



RcimlmrBcmcnt may be nllowid wJun there is only conslnulivo and 
no nctu'il fnUHl. (Jardincr Hank r. ■Wheat on, H (;reeiil. \\T.\\ I'arker r. 
ll«>lnie», 2 llill'B Ch. 1)5; Cumininj^H r. McCulloui:li, .1 Ala. \VH. 

If ft party hn« nllowcd IiIh nnnie to be used in a fraudulent urwi-^Timcnt, 
and t<ull<n<l the property to be mpiandcred, he will be ronipelled to 
nccount for its value to the crc<litor4. Iluglics r. Bloomer, 9 Puige, 209. 



REMEDIES. ^7 

Tlic vjilno of ]U'nii;iii(iit and siili-tantial iin]irovomontfi of 
all kinds, l»v wliifli tlic jirc-cnt vaJiK; of tlio ]»ri)]MTtv is ini 
]trit\ (.'<!, Hiu'h as lor tho erec'ti<»n of a man-ion liunsc, ami I'ur 
plantations of islinibs, will be allowed.'"' l'»nt no allowance' 
will be made for moneys wlucli liave been expended by tlie 
party in possession, as a matter of taste or ])ersonal enjoy- 
ment.^ Kor will allowance be made for moneys wliidi liave 
been exj)ended upon the property witli tlie view of renderinL' 
it impossible for the real owner to recover his estate, and so 
improvin<5 him out of it, as it may be called.^ 

A purchaser who seeks to set aside a transaction on the 
gronnd of fraud, should specially ])i-ay in his bill for the repay- 
ment of repairs and improvements. lie will be credited with 
the amount of repairs and improvements, executed before the 
discovery of the defect in title, if their repayment is specially 
prayed by the bill;* and, probably, of necessary repairs exe- 
cuted during or pending litigation, if specially prayed.' 

In a case where a purchase was set aside for fraud, and the 
purchaser was decreed to pay an occupation rent, receiving 
back his purchase mone3's with interest, there being a consider- 
able excess of the rent over the interest, annual rests were 
directed, until the principal should be liquidated;^ but a 
special case must be shown to warrant such a direction.' 

' York Bnildinccs Co. v. SI'Kenzie, 3 Stepney v. Biddulph, 6 N. R. 505, IS 

Pat Sc. App. 398, 579 ; 3 IIosi?. L. C. W. R. r.76, Sugj. V. «fe P. 287. See 

So. 305 ; Stepney v. Biddulph, 1 3 W. Pelly v. Bascombe, 4 Giff. liOO. 

R. 57ti, f. N. K. 506. ' See Edwards v. M'Cleav. 2 Sw. 289. 

" York Buildinirs Co. v. ^il'Kenzie, 3 » Sug. V. &, P. 279 ; Dart. V. »k I' 

Pat. Se. A p. :;98, 579, 3 Ross. L. C. Sc. 523. 

305; Att.-Gen. c. Kerr, 2 Beav. 429 ; ' Donovan !•. Fricker, .lac. lO.'i. 

Mill V. Hill, 3 ir. L. 828. ' See Neesom v. Clarkson, 4 Ua. 97. 

* Kcuuey v. Brown, 3 Ridg. 518; 



* Michoud V. Girod, 4 How. 503 ; Loan,- r. Cnx, 2 Dana, 469. 

Losses incurred in making improvements and constructing works in a 
saltpetre cave which has been misrepresented, can not be allowed. Pey- 
ton V. Butler, 3 Uey, 141. 



:ms 



ri:mki)1i:s. 



It is not tlu' (•(tuisc 111" the cimrt tt» diri'ct an account of wil- 
ful iu'::U'ct and default, in cases wliere tlie possession is not 
primarily nMiTahle to the character of niort'^airee.* "When 
persons, thouirh in fact inorfirairees, enter into ]i(i><cssion of 
rents and ju-oiits in another character, they cannot he suhjected 
to that special liahility.^ The rule may he dillerent if a special 
case of fraud he made out.' 

If there has heen loni; di-lay in iiliii::,' the liill, tlie ac- 
counts of rents and profits Avill he limited to the time of lilini; 
the bill/* 

If the transaction complained of is one in which a tnistee 
or agent, employed to purchase, lias sold ]>ro]>erty of ids own 
surreptitiously, to his ctstul que trust or j>riiifipal, the right 
of the hitter is not merely to rescind the contract in tofo, or to 
abide by it in its integrity, hut to hold the ])roperty, and to 
pay no more for it than the trustee or agent himself had paid.' 
If the agent sells to his principal proj^erty of his owti for 
which he has paid nothing, the ])rinc'ipal can oidy retain tlic 
property upon the terms of paying its proper value.® 

If the trustee, or other person, filling a fiduciary character, 
has purchased surreptitiously from the person towards whom 
Le stands iu such relation, and the latter does not wish for a 



' Murray v. Palmer, 2 Scli. it Lof. 
48f>; Trmelvaii i: t'liartcr, 4 L. J. Cli. 
N. S. til i ; Muriiliy r. U'Slica, 2 J. <fe 
L. 4J2; SlicTwin /•. Sliakesi)e«re, fi I>. 
il. A G. Ml ; Lord Kt-iisini^ton v. IJou- 
vcrii-. 7 I>. M. it (J. lai. lOtl. 157; I'ar- 
kiii.s»n •. II anbury, 2 1>. J. <t S. 450. 
See decree in (irertic}' v. Mxuslcy. 4 I). 
«k J. lUl ; but Bee decree in .Murray r. 
Palmer, 2 Sch. «t Lef. 4H'J ; Gilwun r. 
D'Ebte, 2 Y. ± C. V. C. 5S1. 



" Parkinson f. ITanburv, L. R. 2 Ann. 
Ca. 1. 

' Howell V. Howell. 2 M. <t C. 478; 
Adnnis r. Swordi-r, 2 I). .1. «k S. 41 ; 
Parkinson v. Hanbury, L. U. 2 App. Co, 
15. 

* Pickett V. LojTijoii, 14 Ven. 2:11 ; 
Miilhallen v. Maruin, ','> Dr. ik War. :U7. 

' liunk of London v. Tyrrell, lo H 
L. 2f.. 

" (treat Lnxemhurg Railway Co. v. 
Mognay, 25 Bcav. 5'J5. 



* When nn nccotint ronsistH of iiiiiiktuii*^ items n>-t-i urv proper substi- 
tntca for n conij)Utatiou of iuterest on each item. Ilanliii;,' >'. llnndy, 11 
Wli' lit. lO'i. 



rvi:Mi:i)ii:R. ;j49 

reconveyance of the prupcit v, tlie Innncr will he held strictly 
to liis bar^'uiii, it' it he l)eiielicial to llie e.stute. If it he nut 
bencficiiil to the estate, the property will ]>c ordered to he re- 
sold and reconveyed to another purchaser, if a better can be 
found ; otherwise, he wnll be held to his purchase; if a better 
purchaser be found, lie will be re<4:arded as a trustee for the 
profit on the resale,^ and will he held responsible for any loss 
which Lis interference with the sale may liave occasioned.^ In 
a case where an estate sold under a decree of the court was 
IJurchased by a solicitor in the cause without leave of the court, 
the court, after the purchase had been confirmed, ordered the 
estate to be again oflTered for sale at the price at which he had 
purchased it ; and, if there should be no higher price, that he 
should be held to his purchase.^ In Williamson v. Seaber,* 
where permanent improvements had been made, the estate 
was put up at its improved value, subject to the question 
whether he should be allowed the value of such improvements. 
But the usual course is to order that the expense of repairs 
and improvements, not only substantial and lasting, but such 
as have a tendency to bring the estate to a better sale, after 
making an allowance for acts that deteriorate the value of the 
estate, shall be added to the purchase-moneys, and that the 
estate shall be put up at the accumulated sum.^ If the trustee, 
or other person filling a fiduciary character, who has purchased 
property surreptitiously from the person towards whom he 
stands in such relation, has resold the property at a profit, he 
must account for such profit with interest.^ 

' Ex-parte Rej'nolds, 5 Ves. T07 ; ' Ez-parte Reynolds, 5 Ves. YOV ; £x- 

Ex-parlc Hughes, 6 Ves. 017; Rantlall parte Lacey, 6 Ves. 625, 629; Ex parte 

V. Erriiifrton, 10 Ves. 428; Ex-partc Bennett, 10 Ve?. 381. 

Mor{:;an, 12 Yes. 6; Ex-parle Lewis, 1 " Fo.\ v. Macreth, 2 Bro. C. C. 400; 

Gl. «feJa. 69. Hall «•. Ilailctt, 1 Cox, 134; ExjntrU 

' Ex-parle Lewis, ib. Reynolds. 5 Ves. 707 ; Brookman v. 

•Sidney v. Ranijer, 12 Sim. 118. Rothschild, 3 Sim. 153; Rothschild r. 

See JN'elthorpe v. rennyman, 14 Ves. Brookman, 2 Dow & CI. 188. Se« 

517. ' Bank of London v. Tyrrell, 10 11. 1^ 

♦a Y. <fc C. 717. 26. 



o."iO 



Ki:. mi: DIES. 



In ;i case where a servant took iin agreement for a lease of 
premise* in liis o\vn name, ])nt really as tlieai^cnt of his master, 
ami haviiii,' after\\:ir<Is (K'nit-d the ai^eney, elaiMU'<l to hold the 
premises for his own hcnetit, hu was decreed hy the court to 
be a trustee for his master.* 

Where a transaction is set aside on the j^round of fraud 
the party complaining will be allowed all costs, charges, and 
expenses properly incurred in respect of and incident to tha 
transaction, inchuling the costs of conveyance.^ 

In taking the accounts between the parties, interest at the 
rate of £'i per cent, per annum, will be allowed on all moneys 
expended in lasting and substantial improvements by the party 
in possession. The same rate of interest will, as a general 
rule, be debited to him in respect of moneys, ct:c., &c., received 
by him, and of costs, charges, and expenses properly incnrred 
by the comjilaining party.* If, bowever, there has been a 
breach of duty, and violation of trust, he will be debited w'itli 
interest on moneys received, or profits made by him, at the 
rate of £5 per cent."* W there has been negligence on the part 
of the complaining party, interest will not be allowed.* 

In ordinary cases, when the court sets aside a transaction, 
the defendant has a right to insist upon an account before he 
is called \ipon to reconvey ;** but a delendant wlio is in i>os- 

' Enri of Stamford v. Dawson, 15 W. I'.rowm'. 2 Coll. I<i7; Att.-Gcn. t>. Al- 

R g.|f,, fuid. 1 D. M it (!. 8i:{ ; Mayor, Ac. of 

» KtlwanlH V. M'Cleoy, 2 Sw. 289; I'.crwick v. Murray, 7 D. M.\t T,. r.ia; 

Bcrrv i'. Armitstcnd, 2 Koen, 221; and is homftimts ovcii now allowed; 

.Mulliidl.n i: Maniin. '.i Dr. it War. Stcpnoy r. I>iddtd].li, 115 W. R. 576. 

:il7; (Jilison v. D'Ksto, 2 Y. i C. C. C. * IJcnson v. IK-alhorn, 1 Y. it 0. C. 

681- Slim V. Crourlicr. 1 D. K. it .1. C. 3-ti); Mayor, ito., of Ik-rwick v. 

620; Cartledfj'C v. Kadbourii, 11 W. U. Murray, 7 D. .M. it Ci. 518; IJuiik of 

g,,4/ Loiiilon »'. Tyrrell. 10 II. U {'t'.i. .Sec 

•Gibson v. D'EsU;. 2 Y. A C. C. C. St. Auiiyn r.'Sinart, L. K. .'. Kq. ISH. 

581; Sharp r. L<-ach. 31 ISeav. 5i):i; » .MVullocli r. Ure-ory, 1 K. it J. 

Maturin ... TrodcMnitk. 12 W. R. 740. 2Sft. 

See Lovell v. UiekH, 2 Y. it C 5.'.; £5 'Murray v. Palmer, 2 Sili. ife Lcf. 

per cent, was formerly allowed, Heo 4'.«i ; (;ii)son c. D'Kste. 2 Y. it C. C. C. 

Jac. 1C<5, nit; »eo ulso Kdward.>j v. 581 ; Wilkinnon v. Fowkes, « llu 6a4, 



* Miller r. Colton, 5 Geo. 841 : 13ibb v. Pratlicr, 1 Bibb, 313. 



REMEDIES. 351 

session uiulor a prctcii(kMl pm-chasu cannot, if tlio courL h-liall 
1)0 of oj)iiii(»ii tliat tliL'rc lias ht'cu in fact no jmi-cliase, iiiKist 
upon an account of moneys paid by, or owing to liiin, which lie 
alleged, but failed to prove, was the consideration agreed upon 
for such purchase.* If a reconveyance is ordered, and an ac- 
count of rents and }):iyinent of the balance is ordered, but no 
lien fur such balance is given on the estate, the conveyance 
must be made at otice, withcnit waiting for the result of the 
accounts.^ 

In one case the purchaser, obtaining a decree for rescinding 
a contract, on the ground of fraud, was allowed to follow the 
stock in which part of the purchase-money had been invested.' 

If the transaction into which a man had been induced by 
fraud to enter is a partnership, the terms of rescission will be 
that his partner or copartners repay him whatever he may 
have paid, with interest thereon, and indemnify him against 
all claims and demands which he may have become subject to 
by reason of his having entered into the partnership; he, on 
the other hand, accounting for what he may have received 
since his entry into the concern.* 

If a man has been induced by false representations in the 
prospectus of a company to take shares from the company, he 
is entitled to recover his money, and to have his name removed 
from the register.^ If he has received dividends before dis- 
covering the fraud, the terms of rescission are, that his name 
shall be removed from the register, and that an account shall 
be taken of what sums have been paid to him by the company, 
and of what sums he has received with interest at a reasonable 
rate, and that the balance shall be paid to him with all costs.^ 



'•Wilkinson v. Fowkcs, ib. ' Estates Investment Co., L. R. 3 Eq. 

' Trcvclyan V. Cliarter, 9 Beav. 140. U'l; Fox's Case, 37 L. J. Ch. 257; 

■Small V. AttwooU, Younj^e, 507. Cliester v. Spars:©, Itj W. R. 570. 

* Linili. on Part. p. 929. " Kent v. Freehold Land and Brick- 

• Blake's Case, 34 Beav. 639 ; Ross v. making Co., L. R. 4 Eq. 598. 



iiO'2 REMKIUKS. 

Wlierc a person, iii unk'r to (lelVaud liis creditors, lia4 
transferred sto(;k to a lietitious person, upon proof ot" the tact, 
it will Ite orilered that the tietitions name shall l)e erased Ironi 
the reLTistrr, :iiid that t!ie name ntthe real owner he inserted.* 
If a ease for rescission be not nnule out, the i)ill may be 
<lismisscd, without ])reiudice to any action at law that the 
plaintitf may bring.* 

If an instrument be founded on fraud, there can be no 
rectitication. The court can reform an in.^tnimcnt «>nly where 
its incorrectness arises from mistake, Irom ii^norance, or acci- 
dent, and docs not go to impeach the general fairness of the 
transaction.' 

If a man's name has been placed on the register of share- 
holders of a company, without his consent, through the false 
representations of a third party, and an order to wind up the 
company has been subsecpicntly made, the court will order it 
to be removed from the register.* 

In cases where a man has fraudulently appropriated to 
his own use money's belonging to another, the apjtropriate 
remedy of the Court of Chancery is by declaring him a 
trustee of such moneys, and ordering him to make them 
good." 

A court of equity will relieve against iraud in judicial 
])roceedings. Jf a ]>;irty has been in<luced by fraud to consent 
to a decree, or if fraud in obtaining a decree has been prac- 
ticed on the court, the court will grant relief on being sati>tied 
that the conduct of the ])arty Inmself has nnt depri\i(l him oi' 
his title to relief, and that the relief can be given with lUw 
rcard to the iu>t intercuts of others." 

' Orccn V. Ilnnk of Kti-lnii<l. :f Y. .t * AV I'ntfut File Co., JCr-parlr White. 

(' 722; Artliur i-. .Mitilaiiil Kailwuy IS W. !{. 7.'>l. 

Co., ri K. it J. "J" ■» * H.'l'" »'• <Jr.'i;ory. :?1 L J. Ch. '274 ; 

* Ilnrtlill f. Siilmon, ft I>. M. A (J. :i:{. Cliiiriloii v. ('ooinli-*. I (Jiir. HS.'i. 

Sff! Kvniii r. Hirkiii-ll, ft V<h. I'.M. * l»iirn<Hly v r.twc-li. 1 Vos. 12<», 2H5; 

' Walt t. Cnivv, 2 Sch. 6i L<'f. .M'2. Dnvi-iiiiort v. SUffonI, b IJoav. G22, 

tk-C llnrt<.l»|> t'. llart<n>|>, 21 D'uv 'J.'.'.i tn/ira, p. i\i. 



REMEDIES. 353 

"Wlicrc :uiv tV.'iud or (•(•Iliisiuii has 1»ccm j.raff icc«l, a mlo and 
conveyance caiiiKif lie held valid, ahhoiiirh thcv liavc the color- 
ablo i)roteetion of a decree of a court of ((jiiity.' "' 'Jdie ordern 
of the court cannot, liowcver, he set a^ide on f,n-oiinds less 
stronj^f tlian those which would be required to set aside trans- 
actions hc-tween competent parties.'^ To set aside, on the 
grouiiil of fraud, a decree sigiiccl and eiindlcd. actual jiositivc 
fraud must be shown. There must be on the i)art of the 
person char<reable M'ith it, the mains cuiimus, the mala mom 
putting itself in motion, and acting in order to take an undue 
advantage for the i)urpose of actually and knowingly commit- 
ting a fraud. The fraud must be a fraud Avhicli can be ex- 
plained and defined upon the face of the decree. Mere irreg- 
ularity, or the insisting upon rights wdiich, upon a due 
investigation of those rights, might bo found to be overstated 
or overestimated, is not the kind of fraud which will authomc 
the court to set aside ar decree.^ 

Though the court cannot set aside the judgment of a 
common law court obtained against conscience, it will consider 
the person who has obtained the judgment as a trustee, and 
will decree him to reconvcy any property tliat he may have 
become pofsessed of uudci- the judgment, on the ground of 
laying hold of his conscience, so as to make him do that 
which is necessary to restore mattei-s as before.* With 
respect to fines which liad been obtained by fraud, the court 
would not absolutely set aside a fine so obtained, nor would 

• Colclough v. Bolgcr, 4 Dow. 64. ' patcli ,•. Ward, L. R. 3 CIi Ar.n 

Brooke v. Lord Slostyn, 2 D. J. &. S. 203. 
*^*^- ■* Bnrnesly v. Powell, 1 Vcs. 120, 285. 



* Galatian v. Erwin, 1 Ilopk. 48. 

A punliascr v;\\o has cbtaiiud a decree roscindinir the deed, and 
directing a reconveyance and ri payment of the purchase-money, can not 
eccretly rccrrd a deed of conveyance and sell the properfv "under an 
execution, without delivering possession. Buckncr r. Forkcr, 7 Dana, 



CO. 



."..")! REMKDIKS. 

it pciul tlic ]>:irty nir^'rii'Vid to the cnuit «»t' Citiiiiiioii Pleas 
to get it vacated. The (•(•iirse of the court was, to cniisidcr all 
persons takiiii^ an estate uiuKr llic line, with imtici- dt' the 
Iraiid, as trustees I'ur the i>arty lictVauded, and to decree u 
reeonveyanee of the hind, on tlie general gmund of laying 
hold of the conscience of the i)arties to make them do that 
which was neces>ai-y lor restoring matters tu their former 
position.^ 

Though a court of equity has no jurisdiction to relieve 
against fraud in obtaining the setting up or execution of a 
will,^ it may relieve against a prohate obtained 1)V fraud by 
converting the party taking under the instrument into a trustee 
for the party defrauded.^ 

"The cases,'' said Lord J.yndhurst, in Allen ?'. Macj>her- 
6on,* " in which this court has declared a legatee or executor 
to be a trustee for other persons, liave been cases in which 
there have been either (piestions of construction,' or cases in 
which the party has been named as trustee, or has engaged to 
take as such,* or in which the Court of Prol)ate C(»uld atford 
no adequate or ])roper remedy." ' A legacy given to a j>erson 
in a character which the legatee does not till, and by the 
fraudulent assumption of which character the testator has been 
deceived, will not take effect. A false character, however, 
attributed by a testator to a legatee, will n(tt alfect the validity 
of the legacy, unless the false character has been ac<pured l»y 
a fraud which deceived the testator.* 

A charter which has bi-i-n obtained from the crown by 

• fVuScc Diff. tit. X X X V. c xiv. i: 1 J. Mil. I.. '2\i. 

Sie rickctt r. lA>i:K*>n. H Vi-h. UUI; ' K. im.ll r. .\l)l)otf. 4 Vtvs. K02. 

}Inm|>MMi V. Iliiiii|i!«>n, .H V. «1: IJ. 12; *Tli\i)n i-. Tliynn, 1 Vrni. '2l»<5 ; Kcn- 

!jint,'l<v f. FihIht, '.» I «'nv. Umi; Turlf- m-U i: Al)liiitt. 4 Vot. h(>'.i ; I'oilmoro r. 

U,u >. f,i(l<l«ll, 17 l^ H. Jit. (Jimnin;;, 7 Siiii. OtWt; tupra, p. '271, 

• All'-ri »•. SIuiijluTNm, 1 II. I^ I'Jl ; 'J7.'>. 

mjir.i, p. -H. ' •'^"■•' Scernvo v. Kirwiin. llciit. 157 ; 

• iJarii'-li-y f. Towfll. 1 Vi-n. 2s7; Clmrlton i-. Citoml).-). ■» (;iir JIM.'. ; Wil 
All<n r. Alnc'|.licrit<.ri, 1 I'ii. H.">; 1 H kiiii«..n i» .lonu'liin, L. U. '2 Kq. 319. 

L. 213. ' <jilf» r. (jlK's, 1 Keen, C'.fi. 



REMKDIKS. .355 

fraud, may l»c rcin-alcd by sei.fa. ; l»nl so lon<^ as it rcinains 
uiircpi-alrd, its validity caiiiiot l»e disjuitcd.' 

Tlio a])[)roi)riatu remedy of the Court of Cliancery a<;;ain6t 
fraud may, under the peculiar circumstance of the case, Ite by 
way of injunction. An injunction may he had either to 
restrain proceedings at law ujxin an instrument whicli is 
vitiated hy fraud, or to restrain a man from doing acts which 
amount to a fraud, in the extensive signiiication in which that 
term is understood by a court of equity. Although a man 
may have a good defence at hiw to an action on an instrument 
Avliich is vitiated hy li-au(],he is not }»recluik'<l from proceeding 
in equity to restrain the action.^ If there be an equitable case 
stated hy the bill, there is jurisdiction to interfere l)y way of 
injunction, if necessarj^, and also by way of ordering the 
instrument to be delivered up.^ * 

In restraining by injunction acts which are fraudulent in 
the sense of a court of equity, the court exercises a most 
extensive jurisdiction. Injunctions may be had upon a proper 
case being made out, to restrain a man from parting with or 
transferring property, or paying or receiving moneys, <fec., &c.,* 
from negotiating securities,^ from selling property,® Szc, &c. 

' See Macbride i'. Lindsny. Ila. 574. ' Traill v. Baring, 33 L. J. Cli. 527, 

See as to setting aside letters patent nee Turnur, L. J. sM/jra, p. 47 ; Kerr on 

obtained by fraud. Att.-Gen. v. Vernon, Inj. ":]. 

I Vern. V,(V:i. * Kerr ou Inj. 595. 
* Fernyhough v. Leader, 1 5 L. J. Ch. * J/>. 

458; London Assurance Co. v. M<ises, '76.592. 

II L. T. 532. 

* Possession alone is a protection against a title ol)taine(l by fraud. 
Niles V. Anderson, 5 How. (3Iiss.) 3G5. 

A party seeking to enjoin a jiulgnu'nt upon a fraudulent contract, must 
assign reasons why the defence was not made at law. Allen r. Ilopson, 1 
Freem. 27G. 

A party may be enjoincMl from claiming more under a deed than would 
pass according to his representations. Hardiug v. Randall, 15 Me. 333. 

If on account of a contract between A and B. A gave his note to C. 
who is a creditor of B. A can not be relieved from his note because of a 
fraud connnitted by B in his contract with A. Williamson r. Hanney, 1 
Frccm. Ch. 112. 



S«», alsii, iiijiiiK'tiuns may \>v liml to rr-train tlic> jtiracy of tradc^ 
marks.* So, also, if a man lias Ity liis rotuliu-t eiicou raided 
aiintluT to (.xiniitl moiK'vs «.in jiroprrty, <»r (U-al in a matter of 
interest, a court of e<|uity will restrain him fn»m tlero^atiiiii; 
from the interest in which that other has heen in<!:ue(l to deal, 
or from enforcing his legal right against him, unless the latter 
has received the benefit which lie contemjdated at the time he 
was induced to altir his condition.' AVlicre, accordingly, a 
lessor, pending an agreement for a building lease, represented 
to the intended lessee that he could not obstruct the sea view 
from the houses to be built by the lessee, ])ursuant to the 
proposed lease, because he himself was a lessee under a lease 
for '.•".»'.» years, containing covenants Avhich restricted him from 
so doing; but after the building lease had been taken, and the 
houses built upon the laith of the representation, the lessor 
surrendered his O'JO years' lease, and took a new lease, omitting 
the restrictive covenants, the court retrained Jiiiii, Ity injunc- 
tion, from building so as to obstruct the sea view.^ So, also, 
where on one of two jiartners retiring from business, it was 
left to arbitration to determine what was to be paid to the 
retiring jiartner for the good-will of the husincss ; and the 
arbitrators, <»n the clear understanding (»f the parties that the 
retiring j>artner would not set up trade in tlu' vicinity, allowed 
him £'oO<) as his share of the g(»o(l-will, but the award was 
silent on the subject ; the court, nevertheless, ujxm parol 
evidence of the understanding on which the award was made, 
restrained him IVom carrying on trade in tlu- same vicinity.* 
So, also, a man who has pci-iniltcd the owner of the adjoining 
premises to rebuild them to a greater height than they were 
before, and to alter his ancient lights, and to open new ones. 



» Korr on Inj. 471-189. ' V\ir^r,n v. Straltcm. John. '.\:><:<, 1 I). 

* Supra, l>. Vlf>. F. .1- .1. r.\. 

^ * liarriiiOD v. Gardiner, 2 Madd. 198. 



ui:mi:i)Ii:s. .TiT 

will be restrained hy iiijiiMctiou fiDiii inlernipting the lights 
after they are coiiiplfted.* 

Wlicre tlic aid of a court of e<]uitj is sou^dit by way of 
speeilic perfonnance of a contract, tlic principles of ctliicH 
liave a more extensive sway tlian wlien a contract is sought 
to be rescinded. 'J'lie court is not bound to decree specific 
performance in every case wliere it will not set aside a con- 
tract, or to set aside every contract that it will not specifically 
l)erform.'' When the rescision of a contract is sought, a case 
must be made out sliowing that the transaction is not oidv 
unfit to be acted on in ecpiity, but is also unfit to be acted 
on at law;' but it does not follow, though a contract be good 
in point of law, that it must be carried into execution in 
eciuity. Many circumstances may operate to induce a court of 
equity to refuse its assistance, though the agreement may 
stand the test of a court of law."** The court in such cases 
simply refuses to interfere, leaving the parties to such conse- 
(piences as may follow from the legal rights which the contract 
may have given them.^f Specific performance rests with the 
discretion of the court upon a view of all the circumstances^ ;}: 

' Cotchin^ V. Bassptt, 32 Beav. 101. ■* Martin r. Alitchell, 2 J. <fe W. 420; 

SeerurtlR'r,.s»j9TO, 127-133; Kerr on Inj. Barflett v. Salmon, 6 D. M. tk G 33- 

201-2(15. 349. IliiTirins v. Sanicls. 2 .1. <fe 11. 400. 

" Cailman v. Ilornor, 18 Ves. 10; '^ Jk'llaniy v. Sabine, 2 PJi. 449 • 

Vigcrs r. Tike, 8 CI. <fc Fin. 645; Wilde Myers c. Watson, 1 Sim.' \. S. 529. 
;•. Gibson, 1 II. L. f)07; Rawlins v. "MVliite v. iJamon, 7 Ves. 33; Rad- 

Wicldiam, 3 D. & J. 322. cliffe v. Warrin;^ton, 12 Ves.' 331 • 

' Yitrers v. Pike, 8 Cl. & Fin. 645. Falcke i: Gray, 4 Drew, f.59 ; Watson 

See Willau v. Willan, 2 Dow. 275. v. Marstun, 4 D. M. <fc G. 230.' 



* Henderson r. Hays, 2 Watts. 148 ; McWhorter v. McMahon, 1 Clarke, 
400 ; Frisby v. Ballanee, 4 Scam. 289 ; Gould v. "Womark, 2 Ala. 8:1. 

t King V. Hamilton, 4 Pet. 311; Eastland r. Vanarsdale, :3 Bibh. 274; 
Rice e. Rawlings, :Mcigs, 406 ; Hull v. Ro<.s, ;J Hoy, 200. 

I Pratt r. Carroll, 8 Cranch. 471 ; Rcinicker r. Smith. 2 II. i^: .1. 421 ; 
Perkins r. Wright, 3 11. & McII. 324 ; Lciiih v. Cnimi), 1 Ircd. Eq. 201) ; 
Clitherall r. Ogilvic, 1 Dessau. 256. 

A court of equity will not set up a deofl which has been suppressed as 



.>.».s iii:.Mi:iiii:s. 

ami wifli MM I've to tlio siibstiuitial justici' of the caso.' * AVlierc 
a ]>arty calls lor specific j)erroriiian('c, lie must, as to every 
]>art ot' the transact ion, l)e tree tVoin cNfry iiii|iiitation ot' train! 
or deceit. An ai^reenient aU'ected l»y misrepresentation, or 
tainted hy deceit, is incapable of beinj^ made the subject ot'tho 
interference of a court of ctpiity in order to c<»mpel its specific 
jierformance.'f Tlierc can be no s])ecific performance if a 
material and ini[iortaiit fact be untruly stated.^ It is no 
answer, in a suit for s])ecific j)erformance, to the fact of the 
]>laintitF liaviniij made a false representation, to say tliat the 
defendant was imjirudcnt. A man wlu* calls for sjtecific per- 
formance must be able to show that his conduct has been 
clear, honorable, and fair.* It is a princi[)Ie in e([uity that the 
court must see its way very clearly before it will decree 
specific performance, and that it must be satisfied as to tlie 
intcij^rity and *]jood faith of the party seeking; its interference.' 
Misrepresentation as to a small ])ortion only of t!ic jiroperty, 
the subject of the contract, will, if the misrepresentation is 
intentional, prevent a man from comini^ to the court to have 

' King V. Hamilton, 4 Peters ( Amcr.), :i 1). F. A J. 718 ; Colby v. Gr.dsden, 16 

I'.ll. W. U. 1185. 

' Harris v. Kemblo. 7 L. J. Cli. 83; 5 ' IVico «-. Macniilav. 2 1>. M. ,t G. 

IJIIkIi. 7:i<>. Sen I'liilipps v. Duko of 330. 

IJuckH. 1 Vern. 227; Kllanl v. Lord M'ox v. MicKlUton. 2 Dn-w. 220; 

Llnn.iafT. 1 Ho. A lit-. 211; Un-nloy t-. Walters r. Morijiui, 3 1) F. it J. 718. 
Collins, You. 317; Walter.-i v. Mori^an, * Jircalev i; (."oliiiis. You. 327; Wal- 

ters I-. Mor-jun, 3 D. F. & J. 718. 



II ju'^tifiable pruard npainst fraud and injustice meditated against the 
g^rantor. Chapman r. Chapman, 4 Call, 430. 

When a vendor lias fraudulently led a vendee to suppose that more 
land would p!L«H und<r a dceil llian did pas^, he may Ik* conipt'ilcd to give 
II deed for the n-siduc. Wiscrall r. Hall, :{ Paige, 31:1; Tyson r. Passmore, 
3 Harr. 122. 

♦ Western U. R Co. r. Hal)eo(k, iMct. 810; Quick r. Stuyvcsant, 2 
Paige, 81; Hopkins r. Stunjp. 2 H. it J. :!01 ; Klli-s r. Ilurdcn, 1 .\la. l^si. 

t Thompson r. Tod, Pet. C. C. :t80 ; Slack r. McLagan. lo 111. 242; 
Clement r. Hrid, 9 Snied. &, .Mar. .'>:].>; Fuller r. Perkins, 7 Oliio, llKi; Cur- 
bcny r. Tannehill, 1 H. ii J. 224. 



KEMKDIES. 359 

till" contmct enforced. It is not hiifliciciit lliat iIm; vcikIi.i- 
ollrr to waivi' tlii' i)ortioTi afrrcted by tlio representation.! The 
elJect of a partial niisreprcficntation is not to alter or modify 
tlie ai^recnient pm tanto^ but to destroy it entirely, and to 
operate as a personal bar to the party making the a])]»lication.^ 
Misrepresentation of a material fact, although innocently made, 
will be a bar to the application.^ If a ])rospectus be issued 
containing material i-epresentations, and a person accepts 
shares on the faith of the representations, the party who made 
the representations cannot, if they prove to be untrue, compel 
the other I'arty to accejjt the shares, although he believed 
what he stated to be true.* It is a defence to a bill for sj)eciiic 
performance that the plaintift' has made inaccurate re])resenta- 
tions with respect to the property, the subject of the contract, 
although these representations proceeded upon and had refer- 
ence to sources of information wliich -svere equally open to all 
parties, and might have enabled the defendant to detect the 
alleged inaccuracies, if the evidence shows that they could not 
have been easily detected.'' There may, however, be specific 
performance, although the description of the property, the 
subject of the contract, be incorrect, if it appear that the pur- 
chaser knew at the time of the purchase that the representa- 
tion Avas untrue, or inspected the property before making the 
purchase, and so acted upon his own judgment in the matter;' 



' VUconnt Clermont v. Tasburffh. 1 ' Ilarris v. Kemblc, 7 L. J. Ch. S.j ; .I 

J. tfc W. 119, 120. Eli:;h, 730. See Kawlins v. Wioklinm, 

'//>. Stewart i-. Alliston, 1 Mer. 20. 3 D. ct J. 318; Iliggins v. Samcls, 2 J. 

See Rawlins v. "Wickham, 3 D. <t J. ct H. 4(38; Colby iT Gadsden, 15 W. 11. 

321. 118.J. 

' Ainslec t'. Mcdlycott, 9 A'es. 13, 21 ; •Dyer ;•. Ilarirravo, 10 Vos. 505; 

Iliiririnson v. Clowes, 15 Ves. 524; Grant c. ^lunt. Coop. 177 ; Lord Brooke 

Stewart I'. Alliston, 1 Mer. 20; Price v. v. lloundtliwaite, 5 Ha. :i0i>; Ilavwood 

Macaulay, 2 D. M. <L' G. 339; Iliiririns v. Coi)e. 25 Beav. 140; Clarke r."Mack- 

f. Saniels, 2 J. <t II. 400; Comp. \\ liito intosh, 4 (off. 1.34; Henderson v. Hud- 

I'. Bradshaw, 10 Jur. 738; Ilnme v, son, 15 W. R. 800; Comp. Higgins >•, 

Pocock. L. R. 1 Cli. App. 379. Saniels, 2 J. it II. 408 ; Vivcrs i'. Tuck, 

' New Brunswick, ic.. Railway Co. 1 Moo. P. C. X. S. 526. 
V. Muggeridge, 1 Dr. <& Sm. 363, 382. 



.■><K) iu:mi:i)1es. 

or if there avoiv rircunhstances in the case which (hinaiithd fur- 
ther inve8ti<^ati(>ii, lor which the vcii<li>ratl'(»r«h'(l every facility ;' 
«»r if the representations which ha\c hei-n niach' arc vaguo in 
their terms, and merely aninunt to a statenuiit of valne or 
opinion.' 

Tlierc cannot be spceitic perforinaiice if the description of 
the property is of so nmbi<;uons a natiin- that it cannot with 
certainty be known what it was the purchaser inia^-incd him- 
self he was contractin*^ for.^ A vendor of property who makes 
statements respecting the i)roperty, is bonnd to make them 
free from all ambiguity; and the j)urchaser is not bonnd to 
take upon himself the peril of ascertaining the true meaning 
t»f the statements.^ A definite representation upon a fact 
alfecting the value of the subject of sale will entitle the i)nr- 
ehaser, if the representation be untrue, to resist s])ecific jier- 
formance.' It is the duty of every vendor to state all the cir- 
cumstances connected witli the property he is selling, and the 
incidents to which it is subject, in such a manner tliat they can 
be understood by a person of ordinary intelligence, and not 
merely in such a way that only a skilled lawyer would be able 
to ascertain the nature of the title under mIucIi he is pur- 
chasing.' If leaseh(»ld i)roperty, which is sold in separate lots, 
is held iniilei- one lease, it is incumbent on the vendor to state 
the fact in j»lain and distinct language.'^ 

If there be unusual covenants in a lease, and the seller is 
silent as to their existence, he will not Ijc able to enforce spe- 
cific perfonnance against a purchaser buying in igimrance o\' 
the covenants.* 

• f'lnrkn »•. Miukinioxli. -l (;ifT. Ktl. Drysdnlo v. Mncc. r. D. M. A- O. 107; 
' t^rott r. lIiinMoii, 1 It. A- M. I'.'S; Swnisliitul »-. I)i«ni>liv, -.".i |5cav. -loO. 

.lr>linHon r. Snmrt, 'i (iiff. l.'il, tiijirn, ]>. * I,«ir(l Hrookc v. Kipiiiitllliwnitc, r» Ha. 

HtJ. h.'i. IMi. 

'Stcwnrtr. AlliHton. 1 M<r. 'Jf,; I,..y. * Shcnnl ••. YeimbK's«, 30 L. .1. Cli. 

Untl V. lHiiii,'w..rtli, 'j I>. F. .t .1. 'J.'.J. 022. 

• Mortin v. C'otUr. :i J. A L. I'.h;, r.(i7; ' //>. 

' Martin v. Cotter, .'{ J. i L. 500. . 



ri:mki)1i:h. ."Ol 

A purcliascr caiuiut, liowcver, on tin; application for Hpecili(. 
IX3rronnance, take advantage of small circuinstanccH of varia- 
tion in the description of the thing conti-actfil foi-.* Altlioiigh 
the description of the property, the suhjcct-niatter of the con- 
tract, may be inaccurate in some particularr;, or may be differ- 
ent in some respects and in certain incidents from what it was 
represented to be, specific performance will bu decreed if tlie 
property is not different in substance from wluit it was repre- 
sented to be, and the misrepresentation has been made inno- 
cently or through mistake, and not wilfully, upon the terms of 
the vendor making good his representation or allowing or giv- 
ing compensation.'^ If, for instance, the projjcrty be subject to 
incumbrances concealed from the purchaser, the seller may 
have specific performance on making good his assertion and 
redeeming those charges. So also, if the property is subject to 
a small rent not stated, or the rental is somewhat less than it 
was represented to be,' or if the property is smaller than it was 
represented to be,* or is not in the state and condition in which 
it was represented to be,^ there may be specific perfunnance on 
tlie terms of the vendor allowing a sufficient deduction or 
abatement from the purchase-money.® The principle on which 
the court proceeds in such cases is, that if the ])urehaser gets 
substantially that for which he has contracted, a slight varia- 
tion or deficiency will not entitle him to recede from his con- 
tract when compensation can be made in money for the difier- 
ence.' A purchaser cannot, however, be compelled, upon the 

' Poolo V. Shersoltl, 1 Cox, 274 ; Stew- * Hill i'. Buckley. 17 Vcs. 395 ; Windi 

art i'. Alliston, 1 Men. 26. t'. Winchester, 1 V. <k B. 375 ; I'ortinaii 

^ Ilowland v. Norris, 1 Cox, 69; Drewe v. Mill, 2 Kuss. 670; Kin^ v. Wilson, tj 

f. Corp, 9 Ves. 3r.8 ; Hill v. Buckley, 17 Beav. 124 ; Frost v. Brewur. 3 Jur. 1 i'..-i ; 

Vcs. 3y4 ; Pulsford )■. Richards, 17 Beav. Avlcs v. Cox, 16 Beav. 23. Comp. Price 

87, 90; Price v. ilacaulay, 2 D. M. 6: r. "North, 2 Y. <k C. 620. 

G. 314. 'Dyer v. Harnrravc, 10 Ves. 508; 

* Pulsford t'. Richards, 17 Beav. 87, Grant v. Munt, Coop. 173; Scott tt. 

90, ^rr Lord Romiily; Huijhes v. Jones, Hanson, 1 R. it M. 131. 

3 D. F. ifc J. 307. >ee Howland v. Nor- ' See further, I):irt, V. <L- P. 691. 

ris, 1 Cox, 01 ; Pope v. Garland, 4 Y. dt ' Howland v. Norris, 1 Cox, 61 ;.Dvcr 
C. 394. 

24 



362 ki:mi:i)1i:s. 

principle of compensation, to take ponictliin^ pultstantially or 
materially dillcrcnt iVniii that lor wliic-h he cdiitracted.* Thero 
can be no spceitie perfornianee if the descriplion Ik- inaccurate, 
ami the court feels that it (aniiut measure the difVerenco be- 
tween that which was i)romised and the actual fact, bo as to 
found a ]>roper basis for comj)ensation.' If, f«»r example, a man 
has contracted fur the purchase of a freehold, he will nt)t be 
compelled to take a leasehold (though held for a very long 
term),' or a copyhold ;* nor can a man who has contracted for 
a coi)yhold be compelled to take a freehold;' nor will a man 
be coni])elled to tukc proi)erty held in a difterent manner from 
that which is expressed or imi)lied in the contract, as the 
assignment c>f an underlease instead of an origimd lease,' or of 
a redeemable instead of an absolute interest,' or of an imjirovcd 
instead of a ground rent." Nor can a man who has contracted 
for an estate in possession be compelled to a reversion expect- 
ant on a life estate,® or on a subsisting or d ^fortiori a rever- 
eionary lease.'° Nor will a man, who has been led by the rej)re- 
sentations of the vendor to lu'lievc that tlie ])i-oi)erty, the 
Bubject of sale, was in the possession of a tenant of the vendor, 
be compelled to take a mere right of entry." Nor can a man 
he compelled to take an estate where incumbrances or liabili- 
ties exist which would materially aifect its enjoyment." The 
court will not eomj)el a man to take compensation for that 
which can hardly be estimated by ]icciiuiarv value." Several 



r Unrprnvo, 10 Ves, 607; Magennis r. ' Covorlcv t". I5urrcll, Sug. V, <t 1\ 

Fnllon, '1 Moll. r.S8. . 299; Darl.V. <t V. «S'.>. 

' I)rfw<' f. Corp. 9 Vf*. 308; Mngen- • Stt-wart r. AlliKfon. 1 Mor. 20. 

o'lH I'. Fnllon, 2 .Moil. .'»««. " CoIIut v. .IcnkiiiH, You. UUS. 

» I^.nl lir.M.k.r. KouiKltliwnito.r. Iln. '" Liiu-liiin i-. CoIUt, 7 Ir. Eq. 176; 

29R; Cox I'. C'lV.-nton. al lU-nv. ;i«8. Dnrt. V. «t I*. C,H9. 

» hrfwc V. Corp, V \rn. 808. " l.iulilnn v. Ut-vnolds, Kay, t>i. 

• Twining v. Morirc, 2 Hro. C. C. 831 ; " Dm I, V. A I'. V.'.tit, ti;»l. 

HkW r. riiillipH, Vrt-v. Cli. 675. See " I;v<r iv Ilnrgrnvr. K) Vi-h. fiO? ; 

Knrl of I)urhuin r. Li'gnnl, lH Hcav. Mn^'uni'* r. Fnllon, '> Moll. ft8S ; Fcwb- 

(■,]•'. t*'r r. 'runicT. tl .Mir. HI. Sec Kna'cli- 

• Ayl«'H V. Cox, K. Hfftv. 23. IjuU v. (Jruebcr, 1 Mndd. l&Ii. 

• Madcloy r. Uoolh, 2 Di-g. «k S. 718. 



kemi:dies. 363 

of the cases to T)C foiiml in tlie books liavc caiTi(;«l tlic puhject 
of conij>eiisatiuu fartlier than at the present time it would l)e 
carried.^ 

AVlicn upon the sale of land, represented to consist of a 
certain specified number of acres, tiiere proves to 1)C a deliciency 
in quantity, such deliciency is properly the subject for compen- 
sation, if the deficiency be not too great. If the diiference be 
great, there is no case for compensation. The party prejudiced 
by the error may, if he pleases, avoid tlic contract ;< but he 
cannot have specific performance unless he is willing to perform 
the contract without compensation.^ 

Conditions of sale providing for compensation in cases of 
error or mistake apply only to accidental slips, and not to cases 
where the subject-matter of the contract is materially diflferent 
in substance from what it was represented to be.^ 

A false representation as to the value of property may be 
enough to induce the court to withhold specific performance.^ 

Merc inadequacy of consideration is not a ground for resist- 
ing specific performance;''* but if the inadequacy is very 
great, specific performance will not be decreed.® 

' Ilowlandf. Norris, ICox, Cl; Pyer Ilallctt, L. R. 2 Cli. App. 20. Comp. 

V. Ilaijxrave, 10 Vc3. 507; Knatchbiill Leslie r. Tompson, 9 Ila. 2GS; Painter 

V. Grueber, 1 Madd. 15:5; Magennis v. v. Newbv, 11 Ila. 30. 

Fallon, 2 Moll. 588; Collier r. Jenkins, * liuxton v. Lister, 3 Atk. 386; Shir- 

You. 298; Madeley v. Booth, 2 Deg. & lev v. Straiten, 1 Bro. C. C. 440; Wall 

S. 722. f.'Sfubbs, 1 Madd. 81. 

" Earl of Durham v. Legard, 34 Beav. ' Abbott v. Sworder, 4 Deg. <t S. 45G ; 

612. See Trice V. North, 2 Y, <L-C. 620. Bower v. Cooper, 2 Ila. 408; BorcU i'. 

'Stewart v. Alliston. 1 Mer. 26; Dann, /7<. 440, yjer Wigram, V. C; Hay- 

Shackleton v. Sutcliffe, 1 Deg. <t S. 620 ; wood v. Cope, 25 Beav. 140. 

Madeley v. Booth, 2 Deg. cfe S. 722 ; ° Falcke v. Gray, 4 Drew. 659. 
Ayles V. Cox, 16 Beav. 23; Dimmockw. 



* "Wlicn the parties stand upon equal <:roun(ls with equal means of in- 
formation and not in any confidential relation and without any artilicc. 
practiced, inadequacy is no ground for refusing specific performance. Sey- 
mour r. Delaney, 3 Cow, 44.5 ; s. c. 6 Johns. Ch. 223 ; IIarri«ion r. Tenn. 17 
Mo. 237 ; Shopperd r. Bevis, 9 Gill. 32 ; "Whiteford r. McLcod, 2 Bay. 3S0; 
Knobb r. Lindsay. i5 Ohio, 572. 

If to any unfairness great inequality between price and value be addad. 



liOl UEMEDIKS. 

It is no (lotfiico to a Itill lor specific perforinanco by tlio 
vendor that durini; the treaty lie falsely assumed the character 
of a<rcnt for another, wlieii in tact he was dcalin;; on his own 
behalf, and that ho therehy deceived the purchaser as to the 
party with whom he was dealing, ])rovided the purchaser docs 
not show that the dcce])tion inducc«l him to enter into the con- 
tract, or occasioned any loss or inconvenience to him other- 
wise.* 

Though a written agreement, if tliero he no fraud or mis- 
take, binds according to its terms, although verbally a provision 
was airrced on which has not been inserted in the document, 
either of the parties, if sued in equity for a specific ])erform- 
anco of the agreement, is entitled to ask the court to remain 
ncntral, unless the i>arty suing him will consent to the per- 
formance of the omitted tcrm.^ As, for instance, when the 
vendor refused to perform his agent's engagement that im- 
provements should be executed on the adjoining property ; ' or 
when the lessor of a house verbally promised the lessee before 
he executed the lease to put the house into comjilete repair.* 
But if the vendor offer to perform the agreement with, if the 
defendant so desire, the parol variation or addition, this is sut- 

' FoIlowM r. Lord Gwydvr. 1 R. «k v. Winclio^tor, 1 V. A- B. 378; Martin t-. 
M. H-.i. Stc Ntltliori)e V. llolgatc, 1 I'ym'fl. - !'• -^I- '<■' <^- '^l^- 
ColL 'lo'.l ' Myt-rs V. Wutsoii, 1 .Sim. X. 8. 523, 

» Lliirke v. Grant, 14 Vcs. 624 ; Winch 62H. 

* Chiippell V. Greijory, 34 Benv. 250i 



ttic rontrart will mit U- enforced. Catlioart r. Itohin'^on, r» Pet. 204; 
Burt<h r. llogi,'!'. 1 Ilarrinj,'. Cli. :il ; (jarj,Mi r. SiikiII, '.' Strolili. Kq. 72; 
Younj; r. Fro»t, 5 Gill. 2m7 ; Trigf; r. Head, T* Humph. rjJlK 

F'luctuatjons in the value of properly caiisetl liy cvenbi sub.Heqiunl to 
the niakinf,' of the contract, are no j^roundH for nfufting npeciflr perfonn- 
uncc if it was fair nt the time it wuh ni:i«lr. Low r. Tniidweil, '.) Kairf. 
44L 

The HtjL^qiienl dlHcoveri- of a mine is not. in the alisenee of fraud, n 
good t'rouiid lor rci'ubing Hpeeitic perlormancc. Hian c. \ aile, '2 ilo. 120. 



PLEADING. ;;Gr> 

ficient, ;ui<l (Ik; (lerendaiit ciiiiiot net uj) tlio want of a perfect 
written contract.* Spccilic ix-rtunnaiicu will not, Iiowcvcr, be 
decreed with the parol a^'recmeiit superinduced upon it, unless 
the party jirajing tor the specific performance has conducted 
himself with perfect good faith.'' 

As, on the one hand, a court of equity will not, at the suit 
of a vendor of property, enforce specific performance of a con- 
tract for the sale thereof, if the property is dilTcrcnt in some 
material particulars from what it was represented to be, unless 
upon the terms of his allowing compensation, so, on the other 
hand, specific performance of a contract for the sale of prop- 
erty which has been inaccurately described through innocent 
mistake, will not be enforced at the suit of the purchaser, un- 
less upon the terms of his submitting to allow compensation 
to tlie vendor.' 



SECTION VIII.— PLEADING— PARTIES— PROOF. 
PLEADING. 
In suits instituted for the purpose of impeaching transac- 
tions on the ground of fraud, it is essential that the nature of 
the case should be distinctly and accurately stated. A mere 
general charge of fraud, without alleging specific tacts, is not 
suflicient to sustain the bill. It must be shown in what the 
fraud consists, and how it has been etfected. The fraud alleged 
must be set forth specifically in particular and in detail, so that 
the person against whom it is charged may have the opportu- 
nity of knowing what he has to meet and of shaping his de- 

' Mnrtin If. Pycrott, 2 D. M. <L- G. 785. 'Leslie v. Tompson, 9 Ila. 268; 

' Walters v. Alorgan, 3D. F. >t J Painter v. Newb}-, 11 Ila. 30. 
125. 



3G6 



im.i:ai)IN(;, 



fence acconllni::ly.'"^ I'raud is a cinu-liisinn of law; audit is 
wholly iinmattTia! and iiisiiUicient to ulli'^^e that an in-tniinent 
has been obtained by tVand, unless the thin^^s done constituting 
the iVauU are stated on the laee of the bill.* If the transaction 
sought to be inijieachcd be between solicitor and client or prin- 
cipal and agent, tlic bill should allege that the defendant was 
the solicitor or agent at the time of the purchase, if such be 
the ground on which his equity is based.^ If the case ia not 
so stated in the jjleadings, evidence to pro\x> it cannot be ad- 
mitted.* f In inij)uting fraud against a man, the term itself 
need not be used : it is sufficient if the tacts stated amount to 
a case of fraud.' 



' East India Co. r. Ilcnclirnnn, 1 Ve3. 
Jr. 287 ; Small v. Attwdoil. Cl. tt Fm. 
2;:3; Wilde v. (.iibsoii, 1 II. L. r.(»7; Sib 
81111 I'. Edgewoith, 2 Di'i;. tt Sni. ~i'.i ; 
ilunday v. Kiii^ht, ',i 11a. I'.'T ; (^'iirzuu 
V. lic-lworthy, 11 Jur. lllO ; Chadwick v. 
Cliadwick, 18 Jur. B'.U ; Kelly v. llDijers, 
1 Jur. N. S. f)14 ; BotLoinley v. Squires, 
tV/. 094; Baiiibridge v. Mo.ss, 3 Jur. N. 
S. 58 ; Robson i'. Lord Devon, 4 Jur. N. 
S. 245; Irvine v. Kirkpatiick, 7 Bell, 
Sc. Ap. 180; National E.xcliange Co. v. 



Drew, 2 JIncq. 120; Smith f. Kay, 711. 
L. 7.")t»; New Brunswick, <tc., Railway 
Co. V. Conybcare, '.• II. L. 711. 

" Gilbert c. Lewis, 1 D. J. A S. 38, 
4'J,j>'r Lord Westburv. 

' Wiiliauis ,: Llewellyn, 2 Y. ck J. 68. 

* Jb. See Montesquieu v. Sandys, 18 
Ves. 301. 

' Att.-Gen. v. Corporation of Poole, 4 
M. & C. 28; Mar-shail r. Slodden, 7 Ha. 
444 ; Bromley v. Smitli, 20 Beav. 071. 



* Harding r. Handy, 11 "Wheat. 103; Conway r. Ellison, 14 Ark. 300; 
Pendleton r. Galloway, U Ohio, 178; Spcnce v. Buron, 3 Ala. 231; Ikll r. 
Henderson, C How. (Miss.) 311. 

t Forey v. Clark, 3 Wend. 037 ; Fisher v. Boody, 1 Curt. 200; Thomp- 
son t. Jackson, 3 Kand. 504 ; Booth r. Bootii, 3 Litt. 57. 

In order to constitute the j,'round for relief a<,Minst n contract, frauil 
must be distinctly averred, otherwise it will not he in issue. Gorivcrneur 
r. Elmendorf, 5 Joiins. C'h. 70; Fitz|)atriek r. Biatty, 1 tJiiinaii, 45L 

When the hill sets up a case of actual fraud, and makes that the ground 
for relief, the plaintiiT will not be entitled to a decree by establishing some 
of the facts quite independent of fraud, but which miglit of themselves 
create a case under a totally distinct head of equity from tiiat which would 
be a[)i»licable to the case of fraud originally stated. Eyre c. Potter, 15 
lluw. 42. 

A bill asking for a ri*scission of a contract nee«l not aver th:it tlie 
plaintitf can restore the pnipirty. Veazie r. William^, 8 How. 1:54. 

An allegation of the fads and circumstances constituting fraud is suf- 



PLEADING. 367 

A man wlio Bceks oqiiitahle iclief hy injunction against 
IVaud is nut Ixmiid as llu; i)ricc of biicli interference t<j Ijrinir 
tlie whole matter into equity.^* 

If a bill charges notice, it is sullicient to do so generally, 
without averring facts as evidence of the charge. It is not, 
however, necessary to charge iK^tice in a hill to wdiich a plea 
for valuable consideration without notice might be i)leaded.^ 

A decree or order of the court may be impeached lur fraud 
by original bill.* 

There may be a prayer in the l)ill that certain transactiong 
may be decLared fraudulent, and also an alternative prayer for 
relief, upon the supposition of such transactions not being set 
aside on the ground of fraud.* 

It is not necessary that there should be an express prayer 
in the bill that a transaction should be set aside for fraud. A 
transaction will be set aside for fraud, under the prayer for gen- 
eral relief.' 

' Stewart v. Great Western Railway * Bowen v. Evans, 2 11, L. 280. Seo 

Co., 2 D. J. & S. 319. Bennett v. Vade, 9 Mod. 312; Cruik- 

' Hughes V. Garner, 2 Y. «fe C. 328. sliank v. M'Viear, 8 Buav. 100. 

* Brooke i'. Lord Mostyn, 2 D. J. <fe ° Williams v. Smith, 7 L. J. Ch. 129 

S. 373. 



ficient without charging fraud by name. Kennedy v. Kennedy, 3 Ala. 571 ; 
Skiine v. Simmons. 11 Go. 401 ; Faraam v. Brooks, 9 Pick. 212. 

A bill alleging fraud cannot be supported by proof of mistake, but the 
facts may be so alk-gcd that relief may be granted on the latter ground. 
Stcbbins v. Eddy, 4 Mason, 414 ; Smith v. Babcock, 2 Wood & Min. 246; 
"White t". Denman, 1 Ohio St. K. 110; Williams r. Sturdcvant, 27 Ala. 
598. 

When a party seeks to avoid the statute of limitations on the ground 
of fraud, the bill must be specilic in stating the facts which constitute the 
fraud and the time when it was di.scovercd. Moore v. Green, 19 How, 69; 
Stems V. Page, 7 How. 819; Beaubieu v. Beaubien, 23 How, 190; Badger 
V. Badger, 2 Wall, 87 ; Williams v. First Presbyterian Society, 1 Ohio St. 
R 478. 

* A party who has bought land and been let into possession, and who 
seeks to enjoin a suit for the purchase money on the ground of fraud 
or failure ot title, must pray for a rescission of the contract. Markham e. 
Todd, 2 J, J. r.Luoh. 3(J7 ; Williamson v. Raney, 1 Freeman, 112. 



r>(W I'l.KAIMNC. 

If ft c:istM)f fnuid it* nllfj^i'd in rcsjifct >>( the forinatioii of 
a company, it imi>t lu> set up \>y l>ill, aini not h\ j.roct'odinpi 
uiulor a. wimliiiLT-np ordrr.' 

A di'lVndant is not justitii'd in tunittiii;; t<» dcnmr to a hill 
on the j:round that it contains char^'es oi' fraud a-;ain,-t iiiiii.'* 

Assiirnces of a bankru])t cannot at tl>e hearing' insi>t on a 
case of fraudulent preference, unless they have niisttl it in ilio 
])leadinirs,' 

AVhen the same person lias been induced to ])art with his 
property at an undervalue at two dilTerent times, thrcm^di the 
misre])resentations of two diUcrent aj?ents of the same princi- 
]Kil, one bill may be brought to set aside both transactions, ab 
though in themselves wholly distinct, and the same will not bo 
demurrable for multifariousness.* 

If a case of fraud be presented, a bill is not demurniblc 

' LcifcliilcVs rnsc, L. R. 1 Kq. 231. * Ilolderncsfl r Rankin, 2 D. F. <k J. 

»Ni-sl.itt r Ikrri.l^'e, 11 W. R. 44(5; 2r.8. 

1 N. K. -ii^K t'oinp. Bothomlcy v. * Wnlwlintn v. Staiuton, 1 D. J. »t S. 

Squires, 1 Jur. N. 8. 094. 078. 



• An alU'^'ation of fraud in a bill uuist be answcroil, and a ^'encral dc- 
murrc-r cannot be allowed. The allepition of fraud must W- denied l)y 
answer, whatever defence may In? adopted iis to other parts of the 
bill. Stovals r. Northern Bank of Mississippi, 5 Snud. iV- Mar. 17; 
Ross r. Vcstner, 1 Freeman's Ch. 5S7; Niles f. Anderson, r, How. (.Mi^s.) 

305. 

If the defendant pleads to a bill containing an allegation of fnuul, he 
must Btill deny the fraud l>y answer as well as by averment in the plea. 
Niles c. Anderson, 5 How, (.Mi.ss.) ac."); Crawley r. Timl>erhike, 1 Ired. 

340. 

A plea at law 8ctting forth the facts uitlioul avirrini,' fraud, is iiisufli- 
cicnt. Clark r. Partri«lge. 2 Hurr. 13. 

A plea at law containing a general allegation of fraud, without setting 
forth the facts, is insuiruient. (tiles r. Willi:im><, 3 Ala. :tl(>; Clay r. Dennis, 
8 Ahi. 375; Hynson r. Dunn, 5 I'ike, 3il5 ; I'endM rion r. Stai>i(S, .Mo. .ID; 
euiitni, Iloitt c. Holcomb. 23 N. H. r,3r). 

When the fact« wt forth in a plea at law ilo not constitute fraud, tlio 
intention to defr.iud must !•«• averred. Kratnl ( onsists in the intention. 
3Iiwrt r. Kitldle, 5 Cranch, 3.">1. 



PLEAI)1N(}. ?,(V.) 

merely as being brou^^lit for llio recovery of innncy.* In Cult 
V. Woollaston ^ it was luld tliat perfions, wlui liad Ihcii imluccd 
by misrepresentation on the })art of tlic jirouioters «jf a pulilic 
eonipaiiy to sul)S('ril)0 for sliares, may oI)tain tlieir money back 
by a 1)111 in e(piity, althouijjli an action at law might have been 
brought for the same purpose 'with success. This doctrine has 
ever since been recognized as correct, and it has lieen fre- i 
quently acted on.^ So also a bill averring a combination of 
several defendants, against some of whom the jdaintiff may 
have a direct remedy at law, while against others he may have 
no remedy at law, or no remedy except by as many actions of 
deceit as there are parties defendants to the suit, is maintain- 
able ;* though a bill of the same sort against a single individ- 
ual would be demurrable,' except, perhaps, in cases where the 
amount of damage was ascertained, or capable of being easily 
ascertained/ 

The defence of purchase for value without notice cannot be 
admitted, unless it is pleaded.''* 

When a party relies upon the plea, he must, in his plea, 
aver expressly that the person who conveyed was seised, or 
pretended to be seised, when he executed the conveyance, and 
that he was in possession, if the conveyance piirjwrted an im- 
mediate transfer of the possession at the time when he executed 
the dced.^ It must aver the consideration,^ and actual pay- 
ment of it. A consideration secured to be paid is not suffi- 

' Inixram v. Tliorpf, 7 Ha 07 ; Barr}- * IJarrj- v. Crosskev, 2 J. <t 11 30 

V. Crosskey, 2 J. ct 11. 1. * J/,. 

" 2 P. \Vms. 151. • Itiirram v. Thorpe, 7 Ha. r,7. 

'Groon i'. Barrett, 1 8ini. •l.'i; Blair " Lyne v. Lyne, 27 L. T. 2G^^; riiil- 

f. Aijar, 2 Sim. 289; Stainliank v. ipps ^^ Pliilipp's, 31 L. J. Ch. 321. 
Fcrnley, 9 Sim. r..">ti ; CViJlaiul r. De " Jackson i'. Howe, 4 Hur-.s. r)N, M it f. 

Mauley, 1 Dei:. <k Sm. 4r)9; Heec-liin!; Plead. 320. Sec as to case wlu-re pur- 

f. Lloyd, 3 l)re\v. 227; Henderson i: chase is of a reversion, Hughes r. 

Lacon, L. R. 5 Kq. 2C>2 ; but see Garth, .\mbl. 421. 
Thompson t-. Barclay, 9 L. J. Ch. 219, » Millard's Case, 2 Frecm. 43; Wa-- 

;xr Lord Brougham. staff v. Keau, 2 Cb. Ca. 156. 



* Snelgrovc r. Snclgrove. 4 Dessau, '^T-l ; High r. Battc, 10 Ycrg. ;}3.5. 



;)70 PM'.ADINC. 

rient.* Thu i»k'a must also deny notice uf tlie plaiiitifFs title 
or claim previous to the execution of the deeds and j>:iyment 
(•t'tlie consideration,** and the notice bo denied must be notice 
i»f tlie existence of the plaintiirs title, and not merely notice of 
the existence of a person who could claim under that title. ^ 

Notice must be denied Mhether it be changed in the l)ill or 
not.*t Kotice must be denied by way of averment in the plea, 
otherwise the fact of notice will not be in issue.'* I5ut it is 
sufficient to deny notice generally ; for it is not the oilice of a 
plea to deny i)articnlar facts, unless they arc specially charged 
as evidence of notice. If, however, particular facts arc si)eci- 
ally charged as evidence of notice, the plea mu.^t be accom- 
panied by an answer denying the facts as specially and j)arti- 
cularlv as they are charged in the bill, so that the plaintitf may 
'be at liberty to except to its sufficiency.^ 

' Hnrdin-ilmm v. Nichollg, 3 Atk. l.oroii-ti, 2 P. "SVnis. 491; Ilugbea v. 

sni; MoloiTv V. Kt-rnan, 2 Dr. »!: AVar. GariRT, 2 V. A C. 328. 

:il .Mitf Plead. 32i>. 'Harris v. Ingledcw, 3 I*. Wins. 94, 

MIoore V. Mavl.ow, 1 Ch. Ca. 34; Mitf. Plead. :,21. 

Tourville v. Naiah, 3 P. Wnis. 307, Mitf. " Pennington v. Bcrchey, 2 Sim. <t 

Plead 320. Pt. 2S2 ; Ovey i'. Lci;;liton, ib. 234; 

> Kelpall V. BcHDctt, 1 Atk. 522, Ilardnian t-. KUaine.s, 5 Sim. 05i»; 2 M. 

Mitf Plead. 321. «t K. 732 ; Kennedy v. Green, Sim. 7 ; 

♦ Aston V. ciirzon, 3 V. Wms. 244 Lord PorUrlingtoii i-. Soulhy, 7 Sim. 

(n ) f.; Brace v. Duchess of Marl- 23; Gordon r. Shaw, 14 Sim. 3'J3. 



■» Boone r. Chiks, 10 Pot. 177; r.alatian r. Erwin, 1 Ilopk. 48; Brinkcr- 
hoffr. Lunsin^r, 4 Jolins. Cli. i\r> ; Harris r. Fly, 7 Paiyc, 421 ; Nantz c. Mc- 
Phcr'^on, 7 Moii. 51*7 ; Jenkins v. BoiUcy, 1 Snud. ».\: Mar. Cii. XIH. 

t Manliutian Co. r. Kvt rtson, Paij,a', 4."i7 ; WuodnilV >\ Cook, 2 Eclw. 
Ch. 259; Frost r. Beeknian, 1 .Iolin.s. Cli. 288; Lcftwich r. Ome, 1 Fn eman 
Ch. 207; Wilson r. Hillycr, Saxlon, r.3; Mooro r. Clay, 7 Ala. 742 ; Herring 
r. ■\Vinan.8, l Smcd. it .Mar. Ch. 400 ; Baynanl t>. Norris, 5 Gill. 408. 

The «lef'(n(f may In; raiseil by answer as well a.>« liy plea. Donncll c. 
KiufT, 7 Leigh, 'M'.i; Baynard r. Norris. 5 Gill. 4(IH. 

The fuel of notiee, and the knowledge of every ( irennistance from 
which notice run be inlerre.l nin-t be denied. Murray r. B illoii, 1 Johns. 
Ch. 500; Leflwich e. Orne, 1 Fr.-ein. Ch. 207; Wilson /. Ililly.r. S-uton, 

5. 

Where a purchahcr with nolieo rclim upon the iL-nurance of a prior 



PARTIES. "71 

Tf.i imrcliascr witlioiit notice iU'i;lectH to protect liimw;lf by 
]>lc;i, he may dcli'iid liimscll' hy aii>\vei'/ l)ut il" lie .'-iilnnils 1o 
answer, liu must answer fully, although he might by demurrer 
(»r ])]ea have protected himself.'^ A defendant, who i)ut.s in 
answer but docs not set up the defence of purchase for value 
without notice, cannot afterward insist on that defence.' 

PARTIES. 

The hgir at law of a person seised in fee, may maintain a 
suit to set aside a transaction into which his ancestor has been 
induced, by fraud, to cnter.^ - lie is not precluded from suing 
to set aside the sale, by the circumstance of the party defrauded 
having, by will, bequeathed to a third party the balance of the 
purchase money remaining due at his death.^ If, however, the 
bill alleges that the purchase money is unpaid, the personal 
representatives must be made parties, as being interested in 
maintaining the validity of the contract.* 

The executor of a party defrauded may file a bill to have a 
transaction set aside.' So, also, may a devisee file a bill to set 
aside a transaction which has been fraudulently obtained from 
his testator. The heir at law is not a necessary party .^ 

■ Att.-Gen. v. Wilkins, 17 Bcav. 2S5, v. Malpns, 31 Eeav. 88, 31 L. J. CIi. 

291. G'JG ; Lon-rmate v. Ledger, 2 Gilf. lo7. 

" Lancaster v. Evors, 1 Ph. 3.52. * Bellainv c. Sabine, 2 Pli. 42."). 

*rhilipp3 V. rhilipps, 3.1 L. J. CIi. " Wilkinson i;. Fowkes, 9 Ila. 193. 

321. ' Walriham v. Stainton, 1 D. J. A S. 

* I'ellamy v. Sabine, 2 Pli. 42.-> ; IIol- G78. 

man v. Loynes, 4 I). M. cfc G. 270; " Uppington c. Bullcn, 2 Dr. it War. 

Gresley v. Mousley, 4 D. <fc J. 78 ; Clark 184 ; Harrison v. Guest, 6 I>. M. <k G. 

424. 



purchaser, through vphom the title has passed, he must aver want of 
notice in his grantor, and such denial may be made on information and be- 
lief. Griffith V. Griffith, 9 Paige, 315; Gallatian r. Cunningham, 8 Cow. 
oGl ; Woodruff r. Cook, 2 Edw. Ch. 2o0 ; Galatian r. Erwin. 1 Ilopk. 48. 

* A fraud is an individual and personal thing, and does not form a 
claim on behalf of a stranger to the transaction not claiming under the 
party defrauded. Comstock v. Ames, 3 Keyes, 357 ; Beeslcy v. Uamiiton, 
5 lib 88. 



372 TAuriKS. 

So, also, may a rcinaiiitliT iiiaii, \iiulor i\ sctflciiu'iit. Hie a 
bill to set asiilo a tniiisactiim, iiitn wliitli his |ire<lcc'cssor in 
title, uinlcr the scttK'inent, has been indueed by fraud to 
enter,* If iVatid has been jiraetiecd on a tenant in tail, and has 
been earried into eifeet by barrini; tlu? entail, and he dies 
without issue, and without eontinnini; the transaeti<»n, the next 
remainder man may tile a bill to set it a^sidc ; but not, if tliere 
were an independent intention to bar the entail, and the fraud 
applied only to some j^art of the transaction, distinct from that 
object.' 

If several jierc^ons have been induced, by false and fraudu- 
lent representations, to take shares in, or subscribe to, an 
undertaking, each one may institute a suit on his own behalf 
for a rescission of the contract, or for a return of the moneys 
which he has advanced. It is not necessary that the other 
persons defrauded shuuld be parties to the suit, or be repre- 
sented therein." In Macbride v. Lindsay,^ where a bill was 
filed by a man, who alleged that he had been induced by the 
fraudulent representations of the directors of a company to be- 
come a member of the company, praying, amongst other things, 
a return of the money, a demurrer was allowed on the ground 
that the fraud of which the ]»laintilf comj)laiiU'(l gavi- him no 
rigbt to rescind his contract, except a right common U) himself, 
and others who were not rei)resented in the suit. So, also, it 
was consitlere<l in !>eeching v. Lloyd,'' that the subscribers to 
a company have such a eommunity ot' interest in the funds 
subscribed, as to entitle them to sue j<»intly for thcii- re:nrn.' 
l!ut these cases cannnt be reconciled with some verv recent 



' Wnnl .. IIaHp«.lc. .'{ Bli^rli, 490; KUch, L. R. 2 App. Ca. 112; Smith's 

r.rv<lu'«"'< »•. Hraiilil, lli Sim. :WJ. ('«««•, lie Kceso Silver .Miniii).^ Co., L. 

'■ JLllaiiiy '•. Siil.iiK', -Z I'll. 4'.'r.. Sen It. 2 Cli. Ap|>. Cul. 
T«r!tl..n r." Lidd.ll. 17 <l H. Il'.to. ♦ U lla. .'.71. 

• Coll r. W.M,liiu-toii. 2 I'. Wtiix. l.'.J ; • » Dr.w. 'J 1 2. 

Grp«-n t'. l!arr<tt, 1 .Sim. 4.'» ; ('ri«l!iin<i 'Sec Willinms r. Smith, 7 L. J. Ch. 

r. It.- Mniii. V, 1 \»X. «t Sm. l.'.W; C.ri- 12«. 
tral lUiilway Compuuy of Vcuczucia v 



PARTIES. ;{7;} 

cases, in which it has hcen liuhl tliat a man, who has been in- 
ducfd by false rcpresentatiuiis in the pi-ospectus of a C(>m\Kiuy 
to take shares in the company, may mainlaln a suit on lii;> own 
behalf a<j^ainst the company and its directors, ior a rescission 
of his contract to take shares.* The law, therefore, iiprm this 
subject, must be considered as still open to discussion, but the 
better opinion would seem to be, that each person, who has 
been defrauded, has a distinct and separate ground of relief, 
and that, therefore, a suit by one of them on behalf of himself 
and the others, is irregular, and cannot be maintained.^ 

A suit may, however, be properly instituted by one or 
some of a number of partners, on behalf of himself, or them- 
selves, and all others whose interest is identical with his or 
their own, when the object of the suit is to make an officer of 
the company account for a secret benefit or advantage ob- 
tained by him, in breach of the good faith owing to those 
whose affairs he conducts ; ^ or to rescind a contract into which 
the partnership has been induced to enter, by false and fraud- 
ulent representations.'* 

The right to bring an action of deceit at law, or to have 
relief in equity, on the ground of misrepresentation, is not 
confined to the person to whom the fiilse representation has 
been made, but extends to third persons, provided it appear 
that the representation was made with the intent that it 
should be acted on by such third persons, or by the class of 
persons to whom they may be supposed to belong, in the 
manner that occasions the loss or injury.' 

' Central Railway Co. of Venezuela Lund v. Blnnslinnl, 4 Ila. 9 ; Beck v. 

V. Kisch, L. R. 2 App. Ca. 112; Smith's Kantorowiez, 3 K. <fe J. 230; Attwood 

Case, He Keese River Silver Miulng v. Merrywiather, 37 L. J. Ch. 35. 
Co. L. R. 2Ch. App. 604. * See'Sniall v. Attwooil, You. 407. 

* Jones V. Garcia del Rio, T. «fe R. * Clifford v. Brooke, 13 Ves. 132; 
297; Crosskey v. Bank of Wales, 4 Langridge v. Levy, 2 51. .t W. 519; 
Giff. 314. Longmeid ••. Iloliiday, C. Excli. 761; 

* Hichens v. Congreve, 4 Russ. 562; Bidford v. Bagsluiw,' 4 II. «i: X. 538; 
Taylor i'. Salmon, 4 M. & C. 134; Ben- Blakemore »■. Bristol and Exeter Rail- 
son !'. Ucathorn, 1 Y. &, C. C. C. 320 ; way Co. 8 E. <k B. 1035 ; >'atiQual Ex- 



374 rAKi'iKS. 

A party, ]mrtially iiitircxtcil in an c.-tate, may maintain a 
enit to set asiile a conveyance of such interest IVandulently ob- 
tained from liim, without makini^ the (ttlur parties interested 
iu the estate parties.* 

It is a jjeneral rule tliat a court of justice will not interpose 
acti\ely in favor of a man who is j>((ftirrj>s oriiniius in an 
illegal or fraudulent transaction.^* The court will take the 
objection a.>^ to the illegality of the transaction, even although 
the defendant himself does not.^ AVherc both parties aro 
equally ofl'enders against the law, the maxim y>o)'/o;* est con- 
ditio j)ossiJ('ntifi, prevails, not because the defendant is more 
favored, where both arc equally criminal, but because the 
plaintiff is not permitted to approach the altar of justice with 
unclean hands.* f If, accordingly, a deed has been executed, 
or a conveyance made, to enable a party to contravene the 
provisions of an act of Parliament, no suit in equity will lie to 
set aside the deed or recover the estate. The i)arty executing 



chnnge Co. v. Drew, 2 Mncq. 10.3; man r. Rnmscy, San. it Sc. 4r>0; Ilnmil- 
Scutt V. Dixon, li'.t L. J. Excli. iV-i n. ; ton r. Ball, 2 Ir. K(|. IVtl, I'.tl; M'Kin- 
Bajishaw r. Seymour, 18 C IJ. 'MKi; null c. Kobin.'^on, :J .M. tk W. 4;i9; Bar- 
Davidson V. TiiUoch, 3 Macq. 783 ; nard v. Sutton, 7 Jur. (Ibo, j/cr Lord 
Barrv v. Cropskcy, 2 J. <t 11. 1. Lvndliurst. 

' llcniey.v. Stone, » Bcav, ;{:>5. "» Hamilton v. Ball, 'J Ir. Kq. I'.tl, 194. 

'Cecil V. Butcher, 2 J. A W. 572; * Nellia e. Clark,4 Hill, (.\uier.), 420. 
Doe f. UoberLs, 2 B. <k Aid. 369 ; Batc- 



♦ Creath r. Sims, r, How. 192 ; Ncllis r. Clarke, 20 Wind. 21 ; Boyd r. 
Barclay, 1 Ala. :M ; Warbiirton r. Aiken, 1 M'Lean, KIO; Wluiler r. Saye, 
1 AVnll. 518; "NVyatt r. Aycn», 3 Port. 1.57; Kamlall r. Howard, 2 Blackf. 
685; Ilannay r. Eve. 3 Cranch. 212; Bartlc r. Natt, 4 Pet. 181; Sims r. 
Steele, 5 Munf. 2'J; Steele r. Worthington, 2 Ohio, 182. 

Although the jiartie-i h.-ive lieen engaged in business, either tDolinn in 
«<, or merely prohibited by law, yet if the eause of aetion is uneonneeted 
with the illegal act, and it* founded ujjon a distinct and collateral consid- 
eration, it will not be affected by their former conduct. Phalen c. Clark, 
19 Ct. 121. 

t Bfdt r. Holers, IJ Paige, l.*il ; F'lirris r. Dunham. 5 Mon. :{07: Lucas v. 
Mit« b( II, 2 A. K. .Marsh. 244 ; .MCbire r. Purcell, \i A. K. .Marsh. 01 ; Cuu- 
oiugbam r, bhiuldn, 4 Hey. 44. 



PARTIES. 375 

it cmiiiot 1)0 heard to allege his own fr.iiKhilcnt |»iirposc. IIo 
is estopped from confining the operation n|" his deed within 
tlie limits of his intended fraiid.^ In a case where a man, in 
order to give his hrother a colorable qnaliiication to kill game, 
conveyed some land to him, it was held that his widow could' 
not avoid the conveyance in an action of ejectment against her 
by the brother.'^ So, also, if a man, with a view of defeating 
his creditors, makes a conveyance of his real and personal 
estate to another, no suit is, in general, maintainable by him 
against that other for the recovery of the property.'* 

A distinction has been taken l)ctween cases wliere a deed 
executed, or a conveyance made, for an illegal pnr|)ose, has 
performed its office, and been accompanied by the completion 
of the purpose, and eases where the deed or conveyance has 
not been used for the purpose for wdiich it was executed. In 

' Curtis v. rorry. 6 Ves. 747; Brack- « Doe v. Roberts, 2 B. <fe Aid 369 

onbury v. Brackenljury, 2 J. it W. 3'Jl; See I'liilpotts r. Piiillpotts, 10 C. B. 85 

Cecil V. Butcher, ih. 572; Groves v. ' Nellis t-. Clark, 4 Hill. '(Amcr.).i26; 

Grooves, 3 V. ik J. 103; Coinp. ChilJers Ford v. llarriii'^ton, 2 Smitli ( imJr ) 

i\ Childcrs, 1 I). & J. 4S2; Daviea ,;. 285; Comn. Barnard i'. Sutton 7 Jur' 

Otty, 35 Beav. 208. G85. 



* Fitzgerald v. Forristal, 48 III. 228; TVliite v. White, 5 J. J. iSIarsh. 
444; Bryant v. Mansfield, 23 Me. 3G0; Dorsy r. Smitlison, G II. & J. Gl ; 
Osborne v. :Mos3, 7 Johns. IGl ; Coltrains v. Causey, 3 Ircd. 240 ; yticknev 
r. Bosnian, 2 Barr, G7 ; James r. Bird, 8 Leigh. 510; Warren v. Ilall G 
Dana, 450 ; Buelilcr r. Gloninger, 3 Watts, 22G. 

A suit may be maintained upon notes given as consideration ibr a 
fraudulent conveyance. Stanton r. Green, 34 Miss. 570. 

Ejectment may be maintained by the fraudulent grantee. Stark v. 
Littlcpage, 4 Rand. 308. 

A note secured by a fraudulent mortgage cannot be enforced against 
the maker. Walker v. McConnico, 10 Yerg. 228. 

No suit in equity is maintainable by the grantee against the grantor. 
Mason v. Baker, 1 A. K. Marsh, 208. 

Equity will not lend its aid to enforce a mortgage given for a fictitious 
debt, in order to defraud creditors. Jones v. Comer, 5 Lciirh. 350. 

Although the mortgage is void, the original debt may be recovered. 
Uaveu V. Low, 2 X. II. 13. 



'M(\ PAUTIES. 

Platamone v. Stapk-,' the Vicc-ChancL'Uor appears to Iiavo am- 
Hiilorcd, that tho ciroumstanco of the purpose tor which the 
ilcod was inadi' not having,' hoi'ii ai'coin[>lishe<l, made a material 
ilistinctioii.' JUit the distiiietiuu docs not seem sound. It' a 
i^rantor, so far as he can, completes tho transaction for an 
ilk'i;al purpose, and leaves it in the power of the grantee to 
make at his pleasure the illei^al use of the instrument origi- 
nally intended, he merits the consequences attached to the 
illegality of his act.' It is difficult to see upon what principle 
it can be contended that a man, who intends to commit a 
fraud, shall not have relief if he succeed in his attempt, but 
shall be relieved if he fails or hesitates to proceed, because ho 
fears a failure. Ilis intention is as fraudulent in the one case 
as in the other.* 

A distinction has also been taken between cases where the 
conveyance has been made with the privity of, or the deed has 
been delivered to, the grantee, and ra-es wliere the convey- 
ance has not been communicated to the grantee, nor the deed 
parted with by the grantor.' But there is a preponderance of 
auth(jrity in support of tho proposition that, although a volun- 
tary deed is made without the knowledge of the grantee, and 
ha^ been kept in the liands of tlie grantor, a court of ecjuity 
will not relievo against it.^ In Brackenbury v. Brackenbury,' 
the grantor had never i)arted with the possession of tho deed, 
nor had it been used for the fraudulent purpo.se with a view to 
which it was executed. After the death of the grantor, the 
grantee obtained possession by deceit, and under a promise to 
return it immediately, yet the court refused to relieve. Inas- 



' ('(X)p. 251. * Untftnou i: Kuni>ny, ^nu. «k Sc. 

* Si-«- Hnrnnnl v. Sutton, 7 Jur. W7,. A1H. 

•CVcil V. IJutrhtT, 'i .1. A- W. r.7H; ' Wnnl c Lntit. I'roc. Ch. IRJ; lUrch 

I)oo r. K.iUcrtH, '.i H. it Aid. .'tt'iW; Uob- r. Hliiirruvo, Ami). 201; (Irovt-s v 

crU V. liolnrlH, I>nM. U:i ; (JrovoH v. GroviM. :i Y. ct J. IM. 
finivo"*, .". Y. <t J. K.:«. Sff r.rnrkiMi- • (VcM i'. liulchcr, 2 .1. tt W. 578. 

bury V. Drackcabury. 2 J. Jt W. a'Jl. ' lb. 301. 



PARTIES. .'{ ( < 

Tinicli as it i.s well CKtcablislied li.w tliat a man who executes a 
\i>liiiitaiT scttliMiu'iit passes the estate out of liimself, thouf^li 
hu retains tlie det'd in his own possession,* it is inipossihlo 
to contend that the distinction attempted to he niachj is a 
sound one. 

The rule tliat a court of justice will not actively interpose 
in favor of a man who is partlccps crunhu's in an ille^'-al or 
fi-audulent transaction, like most other <^eneral rules, admits of 
excej)tions. An exception to tlic rule takes place where the 
party scekiuiij relief, althougli pariiccps cAminiK, is not in 
pari delicto with his associate in the matter. There may be, 
and often are, very dift'crent degrees of guilt of parties who 
concur in an illegal act. One Jtarty may act under circum- 
stances of oppression, imposition, undue influence, of great 
inequality of age or condition, so that his guilt may be far less 
in degree than that of the other party .'^ * 

Other cases which form an exce})tion to the general rule 
are cases where the act or deed in which the parties concur is 
against the principles of morality or public policy. In such 
cases there may be on the j^art of the court itself a necessity 
of supporting the public interest or policy, however reprehen- 

' Roberts v. Williams, 4 Ila. 130. borne v. AVilliaras, 18 Ves. S70; Palmer 

" Smith V. Ikomley, 2 Doug. O'.IC n. ; v. Wheeler, 2 Ba. «fc Be. 31 ; Reynell v. 

Bosanquet i'. Dashwood, Ca. t. Talb. 41 ; Sprye, 1 D. M. d: G. G78, 679. 

Browuiug V. Morris, Cowp. 700; Os- 



* Freclove r. Cole, 41 Barb. 318; Prewitt v. Copwood, 30 Miss. 3G0; 
Austin r. "Winston, 1 Hen. & M. 33; Dismukcs r. Terry, Walk. l'J7: 
Dertlcy v. ]\Iurphy, 3 A. K. Marsh, 472 ; Long v. Long, 9 Md. 348. 

The rule does not apply to a case where the defendant first conceived 
the fraud for his own benefit, and, cither by his artifice or influence, 
induced the complainant to concur. Cook p. Collyer, 2 B. Mon. 71. 

If a person is capax doll, or rather, apnx fraiuUs, the rule applies, 
nlthiHigh the other party is greatly superior in intellect and of more 
prudent habits, for, as there is no rule by which a court of equity can 
measure the grades of intellect of dillerent men jjossessed of legal cajiacity, 
it must hold them to be of equal capacity. Smith r. Elliot, 1 Pat. &. 
llcath. 807. 

25 



;i7S TAUT U.S. 

t.il>U' till' condiict of tlu' partii's tlieinsclves may l.i-.** Al- 
thouirli. I'or instaiKv, a ninrt of cijuity will not relieve a man 
who a^-i^TMs im.jHTty to another with the view of vlefeating 
his ereditors, the case is tlitlerent if the ])erson wlio assies 
the property i.4 a client, and the i)erson to whom it has heen 
assii,'ned is his attorney. The rule of pul)lic policy which 
prohibits an attorney from obtainim:: any advantai;e in trans- 
actions must prevail, and the attorney must recouvey the 
]>r(»iKM-tv.' So, also, the purchase of a bankrupt's estate 
secretlv, by a person for the benetit of the solicitor to the 
assi'Tiees was set aside at the suit of the bankrupt, after his 
bankruptcy had been annulled, though there was evidence to 
show that the bankrupt had been privy to the transjiction." 

When a party to an illei::al or immoral contract comes him- 
self to be relieved from that contract, or its oblitratious, be 
must distinctly and conclusively state such trrouiuls of relief 
as the court can li'irally attend to. lie >liould not accompany 
his claims to relief, which may be Iciritimate, with claims and 
complaints, which arc contaminated with the original immoral 
])urpose.* A distinction will be taken between eases where a 
party has actually accomplished the bad purpose to which a 
deed was auxiliary, and cases in which he had not participated 
in the bad i»urpose which it was the very object of the deed 
to procure.' In Sismey r. Eley," where a jilaintitf sought to 
be relieved from a deed by which he had agreed to }>ay an 
annuity to a woman, on the grouml that the consideration for 
it was a promise made to him to live with him as his mistress, 

• Law V Lnw, Cn. t. Tnlh. 140; St. * Bntly v. Clio-t.r. r> Hcnv. lf»3. 
John r. SL J"»in. 1 1 Vt-.s. U.ir,. ' Sinvtli .. Crinin. I.i Sim. 26-1 ; Bon. 

• Furdc llurriiifjton, *2Siuith(Arucr.) yon v. NoUlffuld, 17 biui. ftO. 

286. ■ ' ''^- '• 

• Adams r. Swordcr. '.: 1>. .1. <k S. 41. 



• Ford r. IlBrritiffton, 10 N. Y. 285; Grimes «. Iloyt, 2 Joucs' Kq. 271; 
Johnson r. Cooper, 2 Ycrg. 5'J-l. 



PARTIES. 37f) 

a demurrer to tlic l»ill was overrulL'<l, as it did not a])i)oar that 
tlie plaintiff Iiad availed himself of the promise. 

A (iisliiicl!i»ii is taken in (Mjiiitv befweeii eiit'orcini,'- illciral 
contracts, and assertini^ title to moneys arisin^^ from an illc;/al 
contract. If the transaction allej^ed to be illegal is completed 
and closed, so that it will not be in any maimer affected liy what 
the court is asked to do, the party to the transaction, who has 
possessed himself of the moneys arising ont of the transaction, 
cannot be permitted to set up the illegality of the transaction 
against the otherwise clear title of the other. One of two 
partners, or joint adventurers, therefore, who has possessed 
himself of the property, common to both, caimot be pennitted 
to retain it, by merely showing that in realizing it some pro- 
visions in an act of Parliament, or in the fiscal law of a foreign 
Ptate, may have been, violated.^ So, also, and upon a similar 
principle, if two trustees are equally guilty of a breach of 
trust, but one has received the moneys, the other may main- 
tain a bill against him to recover the amount.* 

In all cases of fraud, the hand of the court is not arrested 
by the death of the wrongdoer ; but the same relief shall be 
had against his executors, and satisfaction will be given out of 
his estate after his death.^ The fact of the survivor of two 
partners having been sued at law, will not free the estate of 
the deceased partner from liability in equity, where alone that 
estate can be reached.* The estate of a deceased partner of a 
1ii-ni of solicitors is liable for a fraud committed by the surviv- 
ing partner.' 

A third party who has been privy to a fraud, may be made 

' Sharp V. Taylor, 2 Ph. 801 ; M'Blair v. O'Brien, 2 Ea. <fe Be. 221 ; In^rraliam 

!'. Gibbc,'^, 17 ilow. (Amcr.) 2:;2. See r. Thorp. 7 Iln. 67; Rawlins r. Wiek- 

also Nash v. Ash, 1 Eden. 878 ; Mince ham, 3 D. <t J. 304 ; Grecle_v v. JIous- 

»'. Peters, Harg. MSS. No. 112, p. St5 ; lev, 4 D. <t J. 78 ; Walshaiii i". Stainton. 

Watts t'. Brooks, 3 Ves. 612; Knowles 1 D. J. <t S. 6'JO. 
)'. Houghton, 11 Ves. 168. 'Rawlins i: Wickhara. 3 D. i J. 

" Baynard v. Woolloy, 20 Beav. 583. 322. 

* Garth v. Cotton, 3 Atk. 757 ; Cur- ' Sawyer i-. Goodwin, 36 L. J. CL. 

tis V. Curtis, 2 Bro. C. C. 620 ; Falkner 578. 



SSI) rAUTii:s. 

a party to tho Mil.' Il tliinl parties liavc ai<l(.'<l the dircctorB 
of a i'oinj>!iiiy in misapplyiiii; tlio limd.s of the company, u 
bill seekiiiir relief hoth n<;ainst them ami the directors is not 
multifarious.* So, also, a man who has l)ccn guilty of a frauil, 
in concert with one of several trustees, may be joineil in a, 
bill for relief ai^ainst the tnistces jjenerally.' If a man has 
abetted a fraud, the absence of a personal benefit resulting 
from it is uo excuse; he maybe justly uftide responsible for 
its results, and even if no otlier relief can be had a<;ainst him, 
he may be compelled to pay the costs of the suit.* Solicitors, 
w attorneys, who have abetted tlieir clients in a fraud, or have 
prepared deeds to carry it out, may l)e made j)arties to a l>ill, 
to set the fraudulent transaction aside, and are liable to pay 
the costs, even though they may have derived no personal 
benefit therefrom.' A solicitor, who is im})licated in a case of 
fraud, may be made a party to a bill seeking relief in respect 
of that fraud, merely f<»r the purposes of discovery, the only 
relief asked being that ho should be ordered to pay costs.* 
The ease of course is all the stronger, if the solicitor has 
gained a personal benefit from a fraudulent transaction into 
which he has induced his client to enter.'' 

A ]'er,-on lilliiig a ]i(tsitiiin of a tidtuiarv character, as an 
agent, is liable f<«r a breach of duty, though \\v may have 
derived no benefit from it. "Wliere two agents concur in a 
fraud, and one of them only derives benefit from the fraiid, 
the other is also liable in equity for tlic benefit so <lerived.* 
Those who, having a duty to pcrtunu. repi'i'seiit to others, who 
are interested in tlu; jtcrformance of it, that it has been i>er 

' Turfiuniul »■. Knit;lit, \i Sim. »'>ll; Berry r. y\rmit.Hl('iul. 2 Kci'ii, '227. See 

Luml r. lJlftnt*linr<l. t Ha. it; CliiirlUju C'orv ''. Kvrc. 1 J). .1. &. S. lf.7. 
9. fooriihf., 4 (Jiff. :iN.'.. "■(Mli.rrt v. Lrwi-. 1 I>. .1. A S. r.2. 

» I.iind I', niuiixliar.). 1 IIii. •.». ' IkiWKtt v. Va.i<-. '< .\tk. :i27 ; Troc- 

* Att.-JJen. r. Crndork, .'t .M. «t ('. H.'i. tor «*. Ur)binHon, :!.'» Hi-.iv. ;t:{6. tjco 

* .S'ddiin r. (Vinn<'ll, In Sim. M.'i. IJrent r. IJniil, )ti L. .1. Cii. 81. 

* bowlcH !•. Hlfwort, 1 Sell. «k I^-f, ' WnUlium i'. Staialon, 1 1). J. «t S. 
227; Ikodlcft v. Burch, !<• Sim. :ia2 ; 078. 



PARTIES. ;;8i 

tunned, make tlieiuselves responsible lor all tlie consequences 
of tlio nnn-pcrtbnnanec* 

ft' a mail lias been induced by the I'alse roprosentation.s or 
fraud of u particular shareliolder in a company to ])ureliase 
shares, the only necessary party to a bill filed for the return of 
purchase-money and for an indemnity, is the person who sold 
the shares.^ 

It is not necessary that all the parties charged with IVaud 
should be made parties.' 

A man who has released the principal actor in a fraud, can- 
not go on against the other parties who M'ould have been liable 
only in a secondary degree.* 

It) a suit to set aside a settlement of real and personal estate 
for fraud, or undue influenee on the part of the trustees, one 
or more of the }»arties beneficially interested is or are necessary 
parties.' 

A partner, being liable for the fraud of his copartner, 
when acting within the proper scope of the partnership busi- 
ness,* a firm of bankers or solicitors is liable for fraud prac- 
ticed upon a client by a member of the firm.* The client, or 
principal, is entitled to relief against the other partners, not 
only if the case is one in which he might have recovered 

' Blair v. Broniloy, 2 Ph. 300. » Read v. Prest, 1 K. & J. 183. 

' Stainbank !'. Fernlo\', 9 Sim. 556; * Brydges t'. Brantill, 12 Sim. .309; 

Mare »'. Maiachy, 1 M. '«k C. 559; Tur- Sadler v. Lee, G Bear. 330; Blair v. 

ncr i: Hill, 11 Sim. 1. Bromley, 5 Ha. 542, 2 Ph. 3.")-l ; St. Au- 

' Scddun V. Connell, 10 Sim. 79, byn v. Smart, L. R. 5 Eq. 1S3. 

* Thompson v. Harrison, 2 Bro. C. C. 
104 ; 1 Cox, 346. 



* Locke r. Stevens. 1 j\Iet. 560. 

Two joint owners arc proper parties to a suit for a misrepresentation by 
one who was emploj-cd to sell the joint property. White r. Sawyer, 16 
Gray, 580. 

A joint action may be maintained against two persons, if both made 
false representations at the time of the sale, although one onlv was inter- 
ested in the jiroperty. Stiles r. White, 1 Met. 350. 



382 



ruoor. 



aijainst sueli otlier jtartiic'i\>^, hut also it" tlie reimcly at law 
Ui^ainst the other i>artners is barred l)y lapse of time.' The 
original liability ot" diie partiirr lor the fraud of a eojiartinT 
is contiiuieil as well after as before the dissolution of tho 
partnership,' A fraud, however, eoniniitted by a j)artner 
whilst aetiui; on his own separate aecount, is not imputable to 
the firm, althouirh, had he not been connected with it, ho might 
not have been in a ptisitioii to c-ouiuiit the fraud.* 

The infancy of the defrauding ])arty will not exempt him, 
for tliough the law protect him from binding himself by con- 
tract, it gives him no authority to cheat others.* 

A suit which has been instituted for the purpose of setting 
aside a transaction on the ground of fraud, will not fail merely 
because the bill may have incorrectly and untruly alleged a 
third person to have been a i)articij)ator and joint actor in the 
fraud, although such incorrect mode of stating the case may 
affect the costs.' 



PROOF. 

A man who alleges fraud must clearly and distinctly 
prove the fraud he alleges. The ohhm jn-ctfjandi is upon him 
to prove his case as it is alleged by the bill.''' If the fraud is 
not t-trictly and clearly proved, as it is alleged, relief cannot 
1)e had, although the party against whom relief is sought may 
not have been perfectly clear in his dealings."' Fraud will not 
be carried l>v w-av of relief one tittle liev<»nd the manner in 



' Ulair V. Rronil<v, li I'll. :iSI. 

' lb. 

' Ei-parte Eyre. 1 Ph. 227 ; Coomor 
'. Hroiiiley, .'< Dfu. A- .*<m. r>.'{2; nitliup 
V (ViijnU'H-i of .I<THcv, 2 I)riw. 11 U. 

* EvrDV V. Nichrdax, 2 V.<\ V.i. Ah. 



* lUirton c. Hliik'-morc, 2 .Inr. 1O02; 
n.'lliiniy r. SiiV.iiu'. 2 I'll. 12.5, 418; 
lUnir f. IJroiiilcy. f> I In. .^.'>0 ; ("urzon r. 
H' IwDrtliv, 11 .Iiir. VMi>; Ji<nr.int;H t>. 
Hrouiihlon. 17 H«-nv. 2:{'.i ; WiMo ». 
(Jilisnn, 1 ILL. r.tCi; Hohsoii |.. Eiirl (if 



4HH; Cory »•. (JiTti^hcn. 2 .Miidii. M; l>cvon. -1 .Iiir. N. S. 218 ; Loiiinx r Kip- 

Ov.-rton V I'mntiHtpr. '.i lln. :>»:\ ; Stik<'- l.y. 21 L. J. Ch. 2.M ; Smitli r. K.iy, 7 

Dion r. DnwH-.n. 1 IJpu'. A Sm. Ho. IL L. 7.'iO. 

• Ueyntll v. Sj.rvc. I 1>. .M. it <;. flSiL ' Mowatt v. lilako, ai L T. 387 



PROOF. 883 

Avliicli it is proved to tlie Patisfactioii of tlu- court.' If a ease of 
actual fraud is allci^^rd ]»y the l>ill, rolicf cauiiot Ikj had on the 
bill by ])roviM<:^ only a case of constructive fraud.'* •'■ 

If the l)ill alk'ijjcs a case of fraud, and the title to relief 
rests upon that fraud only, the bill ^vill be dismi.ssed if the 
fraud as allocked is not proved. It cannot be allowed to be 
used tor any secondaiy i>ni-i>ose. But if the case does not 
entirely rest upon the proof of fraud, but rests also upon 
other matters, which are sufficient to give the court juri.sdic- 
tion, and the case of fraud is not proved, but tlie other matters 
are proved, relief will 1)C given in respe'et of so much of tlu; 
bill as is proved.^ 

The rules of evidence are the same in equity as at law.* 
Whether certain facts as proved amount to a fraud, is a ques- 
tion for the court as well at law as in equity. f Tlie i^acts to 
constitute a fraud must be proved at law by the jury.* In 
equity they are found by the court ; but a court of equity is 
not justified in finding such facts upon any less or difierent 

•LnfTf. Lord, 11 Jur. X. S. 50, 52, Espcv v. Lake, 10 Ila. 2r,0; Baker v. 

per Lord Wfstl)urv. Bra^llcy, 7 D. M. & G. 5'.)7 ; Traill v. 

» Parr v. Jewell,"^ 1 K. it J. r,71. Bar■uli,^ :i;5 L. J. (h. 521 ; Ilickson v. 

* Crlascott V. Lan^, 2 Ph. HIO; Wilde L)mb.iid. L. R. 1 App. Ca. 324. 
V. Gibson, 1 ILL. G07 ; Arelibold v. Mlanninir n. Leelimere, 1 Atk. 453 ; 

Commissioners of Charitable Beiiuest^, Man >'. Ward, 2 .\tk. 220; Glyn u. Bank 

2 IL L. 440; Price v. Herrinictm, 3 of En','!and, 2 Ves. 41 
Mac. «t G. 480; Parr v. Joweil, 1 K. & ' Murray ;•. Mann, 2 Exch. 539. 

J. 671; Billage v. Southee, 9 Ila. 535; 



♦ Eyre r. Potter, 15 How. 42 ; Gibson v. Randolph, 2 Munf. 310 ; Gcrdo 
c. Hawkins, 2 Dcv. Eq. :303; Blaisdcll v. CowcU, 2 Shop. 370. 

AUcLrations without proof, or proof without allcpitions, can never bo 
the foundation of a decree. Brock r. McXaughtrey, 5 Moii. 210. 

An allcLTntion of fraud is not sustained by proof of a mistake of law. 
Gerdc r. Hawkins, 2 Dov. Eq. 39:). 

Evidence of intoxication can not be introduced under a bill charging 
misrepresentation. Hutchinson v. Brown, 1 Clarke, 408. 

f Petlibonc v. Stevens, 15 Ct. 19; Beers r. Botsford, 13 Ct. 146. 

Frautl is not to be considered a.s a single fact, but a conclusion to be 
drawn from all the circumstances of a case. Brogden v. Walker, 2 H. & J. 
285. 



3S4 I'uoor. 

kind (if piMot" tli.in wmilil 1>(> ri'ijuin-il to safist'v a jiirv. Tlio 
law ill no case jiresuim's train!. Tlic |)rc'>iim|>ti<iM is always iti 
favor of iinuK-cncc, aiul not of ^uilf. In no (luuhtt'iii matter 
(Iocs the court lean to the conclusion of fraud. Fraud is not 
to l>c assunu'd on tloulitful evidence. The facts constituting; 
fraud must he clearly and conclusively established.* '' Circum- 
stance.^ of mere suspicion will not warrant the conclusion of 
fraud.* t If the case made out is consibtent with lair dealing 
and honesty, a charge of fraud fails.* 

It is not, however, necessary, in order to estahlish traud, 
that direct atlirmative or ])ositive ])roof of fraud he givi-n.'* In 
matters that reirard the conduct of men, the certainty of 
matliematical demonstration cannot he expected or required. 
Like much of hmnan knowledge on all subjects, fraud may 
he inferred from facts that are established. Care must be 
taken not to draw the conclusion hastily from ]>remises that 
will not warrant it; but if the facts establi>lie(l atlbrd a sufii- 
cient and reasonable ground for drawing the inference of fraud, 
the conclusion to which the proof tends must, in the absence 

' Rowen v. Evans. 2 II. L. 257 ; Tike » Hamilton r. Kir\v:in. 2 J. <t L. 401; 

f. Vi;,'ern. 2 I)r. A Wnl. 207. Pnrps r. I'nr.-s, ;',:; L. .1. Cli. 218. 

• Tn-iichard v. AVanley. 2 P. Wms. * Llewfllin r. .Mnckwortli. 2 Alk. 40; 

166; I5utli and Montai^'u's Cnso, :{ Cli. VillicrH »'. VillitTs. (6. 71 ; Mum-. Ward, 

• 'a. Ill; Townsj-nd r. Lowfu-ld, 1 Vcs. tV*. 22'.t; pjist indiii Co. i-. Honnld, 9 

.3.'>, ti Atk. y.W; .M'QiR'on »•. Fnr«iuliiir, Vos. 2H2; Stiki-inaii v. l)aws()n, 1 I)i'i;. 

11 Vc«. 407; WalkiT v. Svmonds, :j «k Sm. Id.'.; I'icklL-M f. I'kklcs, 9 W. IL 

Sw. 61 ; llatnilt<.n v. Kirwaii. 2 J. .t L. 397 ; 31 L. J. Cli, 146. 
401; Suiitli I'. I'awxjn. 2.'» L. T. 40. 



•Tencklcr. IJailcy, 2 Hrock, -V.l ; Kanbome r. Stct.son, 2 Storj-, 481; 
Chrirttniau r. Rpiiik. lo Ohio. OOO ; Buck r. Sherman, 2 Doii;^. 170; Casey 
r. Allen, 1 A. K. .Mur^ii. IM ; llumilton r. Bcal, 2 II. ct J. 414 ; IVtric v. 
Wriuiit, Sincd. & Mar. 042. 

Wliin tlic Inuid rclatcH to title, the nature of ineuniliraiircs and Diit- 
htandin;; tillcs must be shown, so that the e(»urt may JtnlLr"' of thrir valid- 
ity. Ayres r. .Milrheli, :{ SmiMJ. A: Mar. (!h:{; Mo^.s r. Davidson, 1 Snud. it 
Mar. 112; Wilson r. LealFoor, I J. .1. Maisli. (>. 

t Clark r. Whit<', 12 I'.t. 17m ; I'liittiplaee r. Sayles, 4 Ma-^on, 313; 



PROOF. ;iS5 

of explanation or contradiction, i)c adopted.* * It i.s cnougii 
if frtc'ts be estfthlislicd from wliicli it would be impossible, 
ii]ii>ii a fair :in<i rcasuii.-iblc, conclusion, to conclude but that 
there must have been fraud.^ The motives with wliich an 
act is done may be, and often arc, ascertained and determined 
by circumstances connected Avith the transaction, and the 
parties to it. Various facts and circumstances evince, some- 
times witli nnerrin:!!^ certainty, tlie hidden j)urpose8 of the 
mind.^ "A deduction of fraud," says Kent,* "may be made 
not only from deceptive assertions and false representations, 
but from facts, incidents, and circumstances, whicli may be 
trivial in themselves ; but may, in a given case, be often 
decisive of a fraudulent design." ' 

Though the proof of fraud rests on the party who alleges 
it, circumstances may exist to shift the burthen of proof from 
the party impeaching a transaction 0:1 the party upholding it. 
If the evidence establishes 2i prima facie case of fraud, or 
shows that an instrument is false in any material i>art, the 



'Rex V. Biinlftt, 4 B. <fe Aid. 101, 295; Ilenncquin v. Naj-lor, 10 Smith 

lf.2 ; Stikcman c. Dawson, 1 Dci^. & Sin. (Amcr.), 141. 

105; Uumphrcy v. Ulvcr, 28 L. J. Ch. * 2 Comm. p. 484. 

406. » Seo C'larkson v. llanwny, 2 P. Wm. 

"Pickles )'. rickles, 9 W. R. .397; 31 205; Bennett «-. Vade, 9 Mod. 315; 

L. J. Cl). 140; Jie Marsden's Trust, 4 Hubbard v. Briggs, 4 Tiffi (Amer.{ 

Drew. 599. 538. 



Nicliuls V. Pinner, 4 Smith (Amer.), 



Taylor r. Fleet, 4 Barb. 95 ; White r. Trotter, 4 Smed. & .Alar. 30 ; Grei^g 
V. Sayrcs, 8 Pet. 244. 

This means no more than that the proof must be such as to create 
belief, and not merely suspicion. A rational belief should not bo dis- 
carded because it is not conclusively established. Watkins r. "Wallace, 19 
Mich. 57. 

* Reed v. Noxon, 48 111. 323 ; M'Conike r. Sawyer, 13 N. H. 39G ; 
Pope r. Andrews, 1 Smed. «fc Mar. 135; Denton r. McKenzie, 1 Dessau. 
289. 

Influence is not suscci)tible of direct proof Conant r. Jackson, 10 
Vt. 335. 



386 PROOF. 

burthen of showing lliat tlie transaction was lair lies upon 
the i»arty who seeks to ui)lu»hl it.' If, for exanii)le, it a^jpear 
that the donee of a powtr of apjioiiitnicnt ha«l at any time, 
before tlie exercise of tlie power, the intention to derive a 
personal benefit from its exercise, the burthen rests on those 
who support the ai)pointment to show that the intention had 
been abandoned at the time of the execution of the api>oint- 
mont.- lSt>, also, if a man riMinliilcntly min_L,des moneys 
belon<>-ini; to another with moneys of his own, it lies on him 
to sever the portion which is alfected by the fraud, from that 
which is not allectcd by the fraud.''* Upon the same prin- 
ciple, if it appear that a fiduciary or confidential relation exist 
between the parties to a transaction,* or if it be establisln-d by 
evidence that one of the parties possessed a power of intiuence 
over the other,' the burthen of proof lies upon the party tilling 
the position of active confidence, or possessinj:; the power of 
influence, as the case may be, to establish, beyond all reason- 
able dunlit, the perfect fairness and honesty of the tran.-action. 
Parol evidence is admissible in such eases to prove the fairness 
of tlie transaction ; but it is to be received and weighed with 
the most scrui)idous accuracy, and to be dealt with as having 
its weight affected by the circumstances under which the 
parties sto(»d.' 

AVhcn a party is under the obligation of showing tliat an 

' Watt t-. Grov<«. 2 Sc)i. «t Lof. r.02 ; eon v. Il.allinm. 1 V, it C. C. ('. 3 JO; 

rrince of Wiilis AHsurancc Co. >•. I'al- Allfroy i'. Allfn-y. 1 .^Ilu^ it (i. W ; Hil- 

iiicr, 2.') Hoav. Cit,' ; ItiiHscll »•. Jackson, luiro f. Soutlu'c. y lla. MO; Monro v. 

lolla. 2l:(; Cotliim i'. Ka.-t('rn I'ouii- rranrc, »/». ::n:t ; /rM;)r.i, pp. loj. l iti. 

ti«-s llailway Co.. 1 .l.«t II. 'IV.i; Dowlc ' Cookf i'. I,amotli«, 1ft Utiiv. 2»0; 

V. >"atiiukTH, 2 II. it M. 2.'><i. Kay »'. Smilh, 7 11. L. 7o'>; kii/>i;i, pp. 

Mlutnphrey r. Olv.r. 2S L.J. Cli. i:ii. l:is. 

4UC,. ° AV llolmf'K'H EHtatp. :? Ciff 347; 

' UiiNM'II V. Jnckson. 10 IIii. 2i:!. Walk.r r. Smilli, 2o H.av. :JU4. 

* GibBon I'. Jt-ytft, *"> Vph. 27h ; Il.ti- 

• Btcprn t». Ilna-liin.l, nO 111. 'J77; Will r. Silvciston, Ct Hu^li COS; 
Brackcnridgc r. llullaiul, 2 Hluckr. 1177. 



I'uooF. 387 

ii!i|>r<i('cssioTi;il jtersoii undurstuuil the c<iiitcnts of u deed or 
in^tl•UIU(■Ilt wliicli lie executed, the inere ])i-0()f of its having 
been read (tvei* to him, tiiiaccoinpaiiied with jtroixr exj)lana- 
tions, is nut sufficient to satisty the court that the per.soii hear- 
ing it read understood it.^ It must be proved by tliosc wlio 
claim under it, . upon satisfactory evidence, tliat tlic nature, 
effect, and contents of tlie deed were cxphiined to, and per- 
fectly understood by liim.^ - 

The intervention of an independent tliird party or adviser 
is an important ingredient in showing the fiiirness of a trans- 
action.' If a solicitor be employed, there is always strong 
prima yacie evidoncG that the party for whom he was acting 
knew the nature of the transaction;* in all cases, imleed, 
where an independent legal adviser or solicitor is employed, 
the evidence that everything which was necessary to be know' n 
had been brought to the knowledge of his employer would be 
conclusive.' The intervention, however, of another solicitor or 
adviser, who, with the knowledge of the other party to the 
transaction, a former solicitor of his employer, neglects, or does 
not properly discharge his duty, is not sufficient to support a 
transaction between them.* 

' Ilosliton V. Hofrhton, 15 Bcav. 311; Davie?, 4 GifT. 411 ; Cartledge v. Kad- 

Moore I'. Prance,- 9 Ha. 304. See Sliarp bourne, 14 W. R. C04. 

V. Leacli, 31 Beav. 503 ; Tokerr. Tokur, » Cooke v. Lamotte, 15 Bcav. 240. 

ib. 629 ; 32 L. J. Cli. 325. ♦ Denton v. Donner, 23 Beav. 291, 

' Moore v. Trance, 9 Ila. 304 ; Ander- ' De Jlontmorency v. Devereux, 7 CI. 

BonV. Ellsworth, 3 Giff. 154 ; Davies y. & Fin. 188. 

° Gibbs V. Daniel, 4 GifT. 1. 



* Owing's Case, 1 Bland, 370 ; Seldcn r. Jlycrs, 20 IIow, 506. 

A court of equity will not commonly act upon the ignorance of a deed 
by a person who can read and write ; but requires evidence of a contiiv- 
ance in the opposite party to have tlie instrument drawn wrong, and keep 
the maker in the dark. ]Michael v. Michael, 4 Ired. Eq. 349. 

"Wlicn a grantor undertakes to read a deed, he must read it correctly; 
and if he docs not, it is a fraud. That the grantee is capable of reading 
it himself makes no difference. Stamps r. Bracy, 1 How. (Miss.) 312. 

The presumption that a person who can read knows the contents ol 



388 PROOF. 

A jKirty is not estopped iVom avoidini; his dioil, l»y ])n»vini» 
that it was cxocutcMl l\ir a IVaiuhili'iit, iMei^ul, or iiiunoral 
puq^osf.' Ndtwithstaiuliii:^ the soK'iiinify ami \'><\-ci' which 
the hiw ascrilus to deeds, and all the strietness with which it, 
in general, prolii!>its the introduction of extrinsic evidence to 
jirovc that an instrument goes beyond, or does not fully eon- 
tain, vv incorrectly exhibits, the terms of tlic contract, which 
it was written and signed for the i)nrp(»se of expressing and 
recording; the rule is settled, and not merely in courts of 
ecpiity, that a deed, on its face just and righteous, may bo 
vitiated and avoided, by alleging and adducing extrinsic evi- 
dence to prove that it was founded on a consideration, or had 
a view or purpose contrary to law or public i)olicy.'^ Although 
a party may thus, in certain cases, be enabled to take advantage 
of his own wrong,' this evil is of a tritling nature in compari- 
son with the flagrant evasions that would, in many cases, result 
from the adoption of a diflferent rule.* 

If a person be induced by tVaiidident statements to enter 
into a written contract, it is competent for him to prove fraud 
bv evidence aliunde, although the written contract, or the 
deed of conveyance, is silent on the subject to which the 
fraudulent representation refers.'* So, also, fraud, whether 

• Collinfl p. Blnntnrn, 2 Wils. SH ; 1 * RoyncU i-. Spryc, 1 1). M. .t C 072. 

•^niitli's L <' a'i.'i; Tiixton r. l'<.|>lin:ii, ;«r Kniuflit Ilnico. L. .1. 

9 K.l^t, 4'^1 ; (''a>^ Liirlit »u<l Cnk.-C.). >: ' Doe v. Foril, li A. A E. 0.')!; Doer. 

Tiirnf-r 5 n'in" N- <"■ <">''•*'>• *' '*'"'-• '^' Howclls. 2 li. A- Ad. 747. 

r 8-l'strntlordiin<l Mont«.n Kailwav * Bi-nyon r. Ncltlefol.l, n Mao. «t (}. 

r'o '• '^trillion 2 n.<k Ad. r,lH; llilli'-. 102. Sec Malbliou i-. llo.l(,-<>n. It'. (J. 

Mnncl.e»ler Wnt. rwurks Co., H: ft.Vi, K C89; Bowca t-. Foster, 2 II. A N. 

ft53- I).^ r. llow'lln. 'A. 7«": Benvon 779. 

r X'.ttk.fol.l. 17 Si.n. :..-. ; :-. -Mac .t C » Dobell r. StovoiiR. 3 B. .t ('. n2« ; 

94- lI..rton r. \V«-htminj.t.T Improve- Wrii,'lil f. t'nx.k.-s. 1 ^o. N. U. (,H7>, 

n.e'i.t Comniii«.ioDer«. 7 Excli. 7bO. C'J8; UoUon f. Browne, 'J C B. N. S. 

442. 



the inBtrumcnt which he exocutes. only stnnils until i)r()of to the contrary 
is produced. IlarriH r. Deluinar, « Ired. Kq. 21:1. 

♦ Boycc r. firundy, 3 Pet. 210; Brainerd r. lirainerd, 15 Ct. n?") : II<d- 
brook r. Burt. 22 I'irk. :U0 ; Flatdrr r. I'reiss, U Uawlc, 'Mr,; Kennedy t. 
Kennedy, 2 Ala. 571 ; Wil»on v. Walts, U Md. U5G. 



PROOF. .'iSlJ 

in a record or deed, or writing under seal, may l^e proved by 
parol evidence.' So, also, if it a])pcar from the written evi- 
dence, tliat tlie agreement really made between tlie ])artie.s 
is not stated by the deeil, j)arol evidence is admissible to 
explain it.'' 

The testimony of one sini^le witness, unless suj)ported by 
circumstances, cannot be allowed to prevail against a positive 
denial l)y the answer. If a defeii<lant jxtsitively, jilaiidy, and 
precisely denies the assertion, and one witness only proves it 
as positively, clearly, and precisely as it is denied, and there is 
no circumstance attaching to the assertion to overbalance the 
credit due to the denial, as a positive denial, a court of equity 
will not act upon the testimony of that witness. AVhere, ac- 
cordingly, a man positively denies notice, and one witness is 
adduced to prove the fact of notice, the court will place as 
much reliance on the conscience of the defendant, as on the 
testimony of a single witness, without some circumstance at- 
taching a superior degree of,credit to the latter.^ * 

y 

'Filmcr v. Gott. 4 Bro. V. C. 230; C. C. 52; Lord Cranstown v. Johnson, 

Robinson v. Lord Vernon, 7 C. B. N. S. 3 Ves. 170; East India Co. v. M'Don- 

231; Holders c. lladky, 2 II. (fc C. 227. aid, 9 Ves. 275; I'Uling v. Amiitage, 

- Cripps V. Jee, 1 Bi^o. C. C. 472. 12 Ves. 80. See Whitworth v. Gaugain, 

' Evans v. Bicknell, G Ves. 183, per Cr. ife Ph. 325. 
Lord Eldon ; I'euiber v. Matiiers, 1 Bro. 



* Qarrow «. Davis, 15 IIow. 272 ; Flagg v. Mann, 2 Sumner, 48G ; 
Thompson t. Sanders, 6 J. J. Marsb, 94; Green r. Tanner, 8 ]\Iet. 411 ; 
Miller r. Tolleson, 1 Ilai-p. Ch. 14:J. 

One witness and coiToboratiug circumstances amounting to a violent 
presumption are sutficient to overcome the denial. McCormick r. ^lalin, 
5 Blackf. 509; Denton r. M'Kenzie, 1 Dessau, 289. 

To have this etlect, the answer must be direct, positive, and uneijuiv- 
ocal. Farnam v. Brooks, 9 Pick. 212. 

A denial according to the best of the defendant's recollection and be- 
lief is not sufficient. Town v. Necdham, 3 Paige, 54G. 

If the facts admitted by the answer establish fraud, they must be held 
to outweigh the denial. Cuuniugliam r. Freeborn, 3 Paige, 557 ; Dick o. 



390 COSTS. 

COSTS. 

The general rule with respect to costs, being tlint costs fol- 
low the event, and that, prinul facie ^ he who succeeds ought 
to liave them ; ' if a transaction is set aside,' or a hill for the 
spccitic performance of a contract is dismissed,' on the ground 
of misrepresentation, concealment, undue inlluence, or any 
other sjiecics of fraud, the successful litigant is, as a general 
rule, entitled to the costs. So, also, if a hill he filed for the 
rescission of a transaction, (»n the grnund of fraud, and the 
charge of fraud fails, the dismissal is, in general, with costs.* 
So, also, when the spccilic performance of a contract is resisted 
on the ground of fraud, and the charge of fraud fails, the de- 
cree is, in general, with costs.' So, also, when a purchaser ob- 
tains specific performance, with compensation, it will be, in 
general, with costs." 

> Townsend v. Clmmpcrnownc, 3 Y. * Lnnfjlcy v. Fisher. 9 Bcav. 91 ; 

tfc C. rj'i?; Parr I'. Lovi'grovc, 4 Jur. N. Loader v. Clnrk. "2 Mac. A G. 3s7 ; 

{^ ci"). * . Pulsford I'. Kiclinrd^, 17 Heav. 87; 

'» Edwards v. M'Clcay, 2 Sw. 280; Jennings v. Hroii-liton. i6. 2S9 ; Dol- 

Ik'llainj- f. Sabine, 2 Pli. 425 ; Dent v. man v. Nokes, 22 lU-av. 402 ; New 

BenneU, 4 M. «fc C. 209; Gibson v. Brunswick, Ac. Uaihvay Co. «•. Cony- 

ITEste, 2 Y. «t C. C. C. 581 ; Multiallen beare, 9 IL L. 7;J.'>; Luff v. Lord, 11 

t'. Marum, 3 Dr. <t War. :n7; Watersw. Jur. N. S. 60; Strakcr r. Ewing, 34 

Thorn, 22 Ik-uv. .ir.l ; Slim v. Croucher, lieav. 147. 

1 D. F. <t J. 5211 ; Dally ''. Wonliam. 33 ' Abbott v. Sworder, 4 Deff. <fe G. 

Bcav. 162; Baker f."M'>iik, ib. 425; 4C0 ; Haywood r. ( '<>i>e. 2.". I'.eav. 110; 

Davi.H V. Davies. 4 (Jitl. 417. Clarke v. Mackintosli, 4 (iitV. l.M. 

' Vaiicuver V. Bli^s. 11 Yes. 4C3 ; • Leyland v. lHin;,'worth, 2 1>. F. * 

Lf>rd Brooke i-. Koundtliwaite, 5 Ha. J. 218 ; (Jodge r. Duke of Montrose, 2tt 

306 ; Myers f. Watson, 1 Sim. N. S. Bcav. 45. 
629; Cox f. Coven ton, 31 Beav. 388. 



Orissom, 1 Freeman, 428 ; Gardiner Bank v. "WTieaton, 8 QrcenL :57:] ; C.ran- 
nifl r. Smith, d Humph. 171) ; Guzzam r. Poyntz, 4 Ab. 374. 

Much reliiinct! sliould not be placed upon loose conversations or con- 
fessions of the party to overlmlance hia stdemn denial in his answer. 
Flufrg r. Mann, 2 Sumner, 4 HO. 

When an executor or admini.str.itor, unswerinj^ in his npresentativo 
character, alle^jefl facts of which he can have no personal knowledge, his 
nnswer will Iw allowed its due weight only, and i< not entitled to the full 
influence of the iinswer of a \w\\\ speaking <.f tin- facts which may be 
■within his own knowledge. Clurk r. Van Kieiudyke, 9 Craach, V)'i\ 
Dug.in r. Giltingfl, 3 Uill, 130. 



COSTS. .'JDl 

Till >nL,'li the ^^ont'ral rule is i\\:d,Jf7'undfac^^',\\(J^\■]]() huc- 
cecds ()iii;lit to Ikivu the costs, costs in equity do not alw.'ivs 
follow the event.* There may he often circiiinstances of an 
e(pn'tahIo nature to cxeni])t the unsuccessful i)arty from tho 
];aymcnt of costs.' * When, for instance, a bill for the recis- 
fiion of a transaction on the pjround of misrepresentation was 
dismissed, tlie dismissal was witliout costs, the court ])eiii_i; 
satisfied, althou<i^h the char<^'es as to misrepresentation liad 
failed, that the property had not heen correctly described.' So, 
also, where a bill for the rescission of a transaction, on the 
ground of undue influence, or of advantage taken of a fiduciary 
l)Osition, was dismissed on the ground of acquiescence, or de- 
lay in instituting the suit, or even on the merits, the dismissal 
was without costs, tlie court being satisfied that the plaintiff 
had a reasonable cause of suit, or that the conduct of the de- 
fendant had rendered an investigation not unreasonable.* So, 
also, if there Las been negligence on the part of the plaintijff, 
he will not have his costs, although he succeed in the suit.' 
So, also, although a bill is dismissed, it will be without costs 
if there has been negligence.® So, also, in a case where relief 
was given against a transaction on the ground of undue in- 
fluence, costs were not given to the plaintiflT, as her conduct 

' Staines v. :Morri.^, 1 V. ct E. IG. Jlontmorency v. Dcvercux, 7 CI. it Fin. 

'Vancouver v. Bliss, 11 Ves. 463; 188; Salmon v. Cutts, 4 Dcj;. <fc Sm. 

Townsend i». Chanipernowne, 3 Y. <fe C. 12."i ; Baker v. Read, 18 Beiiv. SW; 

627; Grove ti. Bastard, 1 D. M. «fc G. Ilartoj)}) v. Hartopp, 21 Beav! 274; 

78 ; Lyon t-. Home, 10 W. R. 824. AVrii,rht ;■. Vanderplank, 2 K. A J. 18 ; 

» Bartlett v. Salmon, 6 D. M. & G. Clejjir ,,. Edmondson. 8D. M. <t G. 8i>0; 

40; Hallows v. Fernie. L. R. 3 Eq. r)20. Clanricarde v. llenninfj, 30 Beav. 175; 

* iIontci=quieu !•. Sandj-s, 18 Ves. Tokcr f. Toker, 31 Be'av. 62'J 32 L J 

301 ; Cliampiou !•. Ricrby, H L. J. Cli. X. Ch. 326. 

S. 211; Fylcr ;■. Fyler, 3 Beav. 550; * Allen v. Kniijlit, 5 Ila. 280. 

Edwards v. Meyrick, 2 lla. 75; De ' Evans r. Biekncll, 6 Ves. 173, 



* McDonald v. Neilson, 2 Cow. 139; Bradley r. Chase, 22 'Sic r,ll ; 
White r. Meday, 2 Edw. Ch. 486; Pearce r. Chastain, 3 Kelly, 226; Sut- 
phen r. Fowler, <J Paige, 280; Reiuick r. Smith, 2 II. & J. 471 ; Spencer r. 
Spencer, 11 Paige, 299. 



;ii)2 



COSTS. 



was not free from Maim-.* So, also, altliou^^^h a transaction is 
set asido, the rrscis.-iitu may be without costs, if the defeiuUint 
is free fn.m lucnil Maim-.^ So, also, when' llir i^IaintilV is 
j>(i/'firrj>,s r;vw/;</.s and seeks to set a^ido a t-i'ciirity on the 
ground of jmblic policy, the decree will he with(«ut costs.* So, 
also, alth(»Ui;h speciiic ])erforinancc be decreed, the decree will 
be without costs, if the j-arty resisting peitbrinance had a fair 
and reasonable ground lur doing so.'* In Iliggins r. Samcls,'' 
where a bill for the speciiic ]ici torniance of a contract was dis- 
missed, on the ground of misrein-csentation, the dismissal was, 
untler the circumstances of the case, without costs. The court 
alwavs exercises its discretion in disnn'ssing a bill for speciiic 
performance, and with costs, on the ground of circumstances 
which Would not be suliicient to cancel the agreement on tho 
ground of fraud." If, on the other hand, the defendant has 
been to blame in the matter, or has by conduct contributed to 
the litigation, the dismissal of a bill for specific performance 
Mill l»e without costs.'' 

As a general rule, where costs have been occasioned by tho 
conduct of either party, the i)arty mIio occasioned the costs 
must bear them ; and where by the misconduct of both parties, 
neither has liis costs : and where a suit has been rendered ne- 
cessary l>y the misconduct ot" I'itlicr ]tarty, still a \>av\ of tho 
costs may havu been rendered neces.siry by the other party.'* 
If, accordingly, a man succeeds in obtaining the relii'f jirayed 



• Lvon r. Home. 10 W. R. 824. 
MVurd t'. llartpol.'. S Hlit'ti. 490; 

■\V«K)(1 >: At.n-y, :f .Mud-I. 4'j:i; (Jn.Vfs v. 
rerkins, Siiii. &"<5; Huker t-. Ciirlur, 1 
Y. tt ('. 5i.'>'> ; Stnntoii r. TatterHuil, 1 
Sm. «t (i. r»:if» ; I'r'nK'aiix i-. Lonr-dalr, 1 
1). J. it S. 4:!'.'. In |inrli<iilar tascs, 
the plointitr iimy Jinvi- to jiav tin- coMtH. 
nltliou;;!) tin* tnin-nction H wet nf*i(lc, if 
I Ik- «lffrni!atil In- fm* from moral 
l.lam.-. Davi.N r. (Hty. ».'. lt<av. '.J'l.S. 

• |)f»»(n!iim i>. Ox. 1 y*". ■-"•>; Mor- 
gan V. liruca, LI. di U. U-mp. biig. 1«0; 



but 800 Jnckmnn v. Mitoliell, 13 Vch. 
r»81. Comii. Dnvica r. OUy, 35 Beav. 
'2U«. 

* Burrowes r. Lock, 10 Vos. 470; 
Vnncouvfr v. lUiss, 1 1 Veg. 4rt3 ; Fen. 
ton V. Hrownt'. II Vch. ISO. See 
M'(2ii«'cn »'. Faniu'iiar, 1 1 Vt-.s. 482. 

'2 .1. 4t JI 4t.ip. 

* I (avis v. Svnionil.'*, 1 Cox, 402. 

' Walters ..' .Morgan. 3 D. 1". .t J. 
71«. 

" Purr V. Lovegrovo, 4 Jur. N. S. 601, 
per KinilerHley, V. C. 



COSTS. ;j!)3 

for, and lias tlic costs of tlic suit i^^cm-rallv, but fails to cstalilish 
allegations of frau<l in llic bill, lu; must pay tlu; costs occasioned 
by such allegations being introduced,* oi-, fur the sake of sini- 
jdicity, no costs will be given to either side when, but for tlu; 
allegations of fraud, the plaintiff would have been entitled t(j 
the costs.^ In Ivhodcs v. Bete,^ the defendant was not ordered 
to pay costs, though tlie transaction was set aside, inasmuch as 
the case of the plaintiff failed to a considerable extent, and in- 
asmuch as in so far as it succeeded, it was by force of the law 
of the court, and not by any merits of his own, the evidence 
adduced by him being also irrelevant and overcharged. In 
Staniland v. Willot,^ where charges of fraud in the bill were 
neither supported nor repelled by evidence on either side, the 
costs M-ere not thereby affected, as it did not appear that any 
costs were specially occasioned by such charges. In Yy\cY v. 
Fyler," however, a bill containing unproven charges of fraud 
was dismissed without costs, because the defendants, by mixing 
up their personal interests in the transactions in question, had 
rendered an investigation not unreasonable. In like manner, 
charges of fraud made by defendants will, if unsubstantiated, be 
visited with costs, even though the defendant gets the costs of 
the suit generally.*' So, also, the l>ill will be dismissed without 
costs, if the conduct of the defendant has not met with the ap- 
])roval of the court.'' 

AVhcre plaintiff succeeds in a suit on the ground of fraud 
he will be entitled to all the costs occasioned by it, and, there- 
fore, in Stanley r. Bond,^ a bill for the delivery of securities 

' Blest V. Browne, 8 Jur. N. S. CU2 ; * 3 JIac. <fe G. 064. 

.Tones V. Rieketts, in W. R. bid. See " ;} Beav. 550. 

Harvey )'. Mount, 8 Biav. 430; Shaekle- " Wriijht v. Howard, 1 Sim. A- St. 

ton r. SutditVi'. 1 \)cir. cfc Sm. 0J3; 205 ; Warriu «;. Thomas. 2 W. R. 442; 

JJroniley r. Sniitli, 2t) Beav. 070; St. Pledge v. Buss, John. 000 ; Tbeyer ». 

All)yn V. Ilardiiiii-, 27 Beav. 11 ; Baker Tonihs, 12 W. R. 512. 
V. Bradley. 7 I>. M. & G. 620. ' Beather Cloth Co. v. American 

= Cullirigworth v. Lloyd, 2 Beav. Leallu-r Cloth Co., 33 I.. J. Ch. I'JQ. 
o8o; Rawlins v. Wickliain, 1 GifF. 355. ' 6 Beav. 423. 

" L. K. 1 Ck Arp. 202. 



o94 COSTS. 

rraiululoiitlv obtaimd, ln-ini^' t;ikcii j>ro conft'sso, tlio jdaintifl' 
was lu'M t'lititk'd tt) i1k' f(i>ts of an acliiui at law, coin- 
inciu'i'il till till' sicuritic'S, tlioii^li not fpi'citii'ally jiraytl lur by 
the bill. 

If a bill {"(intainini; allci^atidns of fraud bo (kMiiurraidc, and 
tljc ik'fiiKlaut (b> not deniur, his not havincf deniurrod will bo 
a reason for refnsinn^ hiiu his extra costs at tlic liearin;;.* 

If acts are (•liari;e<l ai^ainst a |>arfy, wliirh an- in tlictn- 
sclvcs fraudulent, tlie court, upon tlio question of costs, always 
considers the bill as imputini^ fraud, altliou^li tlic word tniud 
be not used in tlie bill.' 

Although a suit cannot be maintained, tlic court may dis- 
miss it before the hearing, evtii without costs^if the defendant 
lias been guilty of gross fraud.'' 

A solicitor, or legal adviser, who lias abetted or mixed 
himself up in that character, in a fraudulent transaction, may 
be made a jtarty t<» the suit, for the mere ptir[)osc of having 
the costs paid by liiiu.* lie eanntjt excuse himself from the 
]iavment of costs, on the ground that he acted as his client's 
adviser.' In a case where a solicitor was free from all moral 
blame, and took no benefit from the transaction, the costs of a 
suit to set aside the transaction were, nevertheless, thrown on 
liim, because he had not explained to his client the nature of 
the instrument.' Although costs may not be given against a 
solicitor who has mixed himself iij) in a fraudulent transaction, 
costs will not be given to hiiii.^ in JIarviy v. Blount,* a 
solicitor who acted as such in a ti-aiisactioii which was im- 
peachable on the gniund <<\' fiaud, but wa'^ liiiii>rll" I'wr from 



• Ncwhilt V. Bcrriil'^f, 1 N. K. :i::>. * Moore »•. rraiiro, tt I In. .*!<»;{. Soo 
'Mnrnlinll v. SIimI.I.m, 7 lla. HI. Ilen.iloH r. linrcli. lu Sim. :!:(•_'; llop. 

• KltKV «'. AduiiiB. a I). J. tt S. 1J7. ry t-. Annilwloml, 2 Kct-ii. 'J'J? ; (ill. 

• Mar'nlinll r. .sLiddrn. 7 Ha. 'li:{. bVrt v. Lcwin, 1 J). .1. .t S. t,2. mipra, 
S«:c iJr III r. Hnnl, l<i L. J. Cli. 84. ]>. iil'l. 

• iJciiiiitl It. VikIi', 2 Atk. '.i'ii ; liar- ' KwMy v. WillinniH, :) J. it L. 23. 
vcy V. Mount, 8 licav. A'6'J. ' 8 Ikav. r.iV. 



COSTS. .'J05 

inornl c'ulj):il)ility, was orflci-c*! to jiay liis own costs, as he liad 
not acti'il with proper prudence in flif niafter. So, also, in 
Fylcr V. Fyk'r/ wlieru a solicitor, hy nii.xinij: n]> his ]M!r.>onal 
interest in liis client's transactions, rciulcred an investi;;ation 
not unroasonal)le, the bill was dismissed against him without 
costs, though it contained unproven charges of fraud. 

The costs of a suit to set aside a deed for fraud, will not be 
given against a solicitor, or jiarty lo the t'raud, if they are not 
specifically prayed by the bill.'-' If they are not specifically 
])rayed by the bill, a demurrer will lie.' 

If a man bo accessory to a fraud on creditors, as being the 
trustee of a voluntary settlement, he will not be allowed Ins 
costs on setting aside the deed, although he may have derived 
no benefit from it.* 

In a case where the name of a man had, by the false repre- 
sentations of a third party, been inserted on the register of the 
shareholders of a company, it was held that the company, 
though innocent, must bear the costs of the aj)plication.^ 

The Consolidated Orders 38, r. 2, rcg. 2, do not contem- 
plate the cause of frand, so that, although the value of the 
subject-matter of the suit at the time of filing the bill may be 
considerably less than £1,000, the costs Mill be allowed on the 
higher scale.' 

' 3 Beav. 650. * Townsend v. Westacott, 4 Beav. 

•Beadles r. Burcli, 10 Sim. 333; 58 ; Turquand »-. Kni;;ht. 14 Sim. C44. 
Roddy i: Williams, :', J. <fe L. li".. » 7iV Tatent File Co.. 15 \V. R. 754. 

' Beadles v. Burch, 10 Sim. 333, ' Earl of Stamford v. Dawaou, 16 W. 

B. S'J6. 



ClIATTKIl ir. 

MISTAKE. 

Mistake ii? a pjroniid for n-lii-f in (•(jiiity. Ari>f;iko may 
be said to be some unintentional act, omissiDU, (u* error arisini; 
from uneonseiousness, iij^norancc, tor^ett'uhiess, imposition, or 
misplaced contidence. ^ Tbere is mistake it' a man tlirougli 
ij^norance be induced to do a thing which he would not have 
done, IkhI he not been in ei")"or.^ 

Mistake may be eithei' in matter ot" law or in matter of 
£ict.» 

The rule that mistake in matter of law cannut be admitteil 
as a valid excuse cither for doing an act ]>rohibited by the law, 
or for th