, 1866-03-16
4 CHICAGO. SUIT IN THE U, 3, 81.
FREME COURT,
acknowledgement In Ejectnent,a Bar
to Suit in ChAnceFT-inAaequa
OF Price ~ m Evtdeuce Of
fraudulent Sale.

The csc Of John A. Blanchard, appellant n.
Nathaniel J. u1sAdmInistt1tor. &C., II a. sn-
pa'od noa the Cnited States Circuit court for H.
Northern Dfstsia Of Illinois. to the Cntted state.
Supreme Court has been heard and decided. he
co1H Affirming fhe decree Of the court below. We
give The following Summary Of the esse:
i IL claimed In this case that In Aurust. 1919
nAtnao1e1 Brown wa1 the owner ip fec Of ! por-
tton q block II, in the "scnoo Sectioo Audittop,
iSacns;s iS Gn'saso, IN ceek eeuntf NJ III. yariors
slca ,eey rse n roa tps trs s,e''se: ses:a e aeen
o. o. %e1scutton. q The Complainant clafms to Do.
!he pnrchasete at the execution ssle md he alleges
taal ie etantots took sctual anc exclusive p1sse--
een .! III ;n,, M IN 1ss md aaand such
II also appeass from the bill that IN Aucuat ISIS.
one one ian fecostr red Judgment Acainst Brown for
x ~ . sno eosn end that execution thereon ittued
he 10th Of February, 1852; that on that day m
ot.os VIII 1as sned out by Hart upon which this
H,opsJ .se = sod eecond time atter hid g1sat1y
~ ioiloHfn-. to one Jeu1s. who subsequently, tuok
sheriff deed therefor; aud in August, 1855 CON
SsdtS dtSeq he j3,1 to one Benjamin F. Brown
The complainant alleges that this sale ua< fran
aa!ent and yoId, ana that be oach, TO b. allowed
evident from the proceedings; that Brovu, with
The intent 10 defeat comp!sinant'e tile. and not
N,th bona fde intent to pay the judgment aeairsi
+A*'
u ~ nee1tt1ttnn and contract With Messss. Arnold
d L1F, Who ha6 been Hart's attorneys. nnd himself
60 a1d pald Iqr TIE = tie sale pro
an unuzual place {the shcsifs ofnce1 with The pu1
no-e q eonceAhne the tact. and that eestiaea'e
sas5fof nM; ~ mdnhed om the record by bloHa
hPse Of time; and that he caused The writ unon
which the sale wss made not to be re-
* seass .e4 T. ss,e; ''f sh s0a IL psit' s.s
Mat nade Al grossly inadequate prsce, the lands
1T Ss5ps .,5es 5ss7 nns: msa ! S st {, a. sans
sold ios sd hi: vas claimed a. s,nono s11, sas
acnee % ot tsaua: i vas furtber alleged ,hai po,a
I'D So,1ee q III tSo: s q ,hsr
laritles. and nf the adverse tttlc tbs answer set
up 1udsmcrt IN ccctneut IN taror Of .. + Brown
<ession Of the property, which as alleged, was r..
covered alter the tling OF the bin IN 1bia caee It
Sas Claimed 'hs. nndss TIE sws Of illinois that
operated a. hAr 10 this proceeding.
lnG Court below affirmed the decree OF the Dis
,nef Gnnst IN iavoE ot he dsinaantt holding that
IN e}srtmcui, and that iscniamtu r ttoNn was
to,,a fdt purchaser, without notice.
m u,Mplatnant appeals 70 this caurt. se..asai.
OF NV. that sale Of proper. on execution upon 4
s9io Judgment. with the arowed (aod oniy} object
ol9eses'ns the t,tle ot third persons tiauduleni
and void that the eatc was invalid for itadeqpacy
OF price, uispsuportion heing 70 enormous that the
other circumstances ofthc case je.t!y the psespmp
s9 eg ass< ns e.! ~. ,ss Il .s ei m
the lscni>t. contained abouf four acres in popu-
lons portion ot the cts and part Of the sae block
had been subd.s,dcd: that The nnsN1e shouIo have
herE Eworn--a requisite to support pIca thut The
delsEaan, gee = pntrhaser fos valuable corsldcra-
grantof of the Complainant was In po at the
1ime Of T. Browne purchase, which was not Dc
nisd by The dciena=n,s; thai although tne legal
zaent IN etecemsus rtu thst ma no bar to he A.
seftnn Of equitable til3e b. the complainant that
10 lnols the distinction between courts OF isw and
equity Il .uliS msintatned and II hss been expressly
decaued IN that State thal such irreeclat3jcs a
thoee compained Of IN tnie case, canuot BE taken
1dEantsge Of ooa'efs1ly il m action OF ekctment;
tnccessfnlly e:1stked IN collateral proceedings at
law npnu similar ground.
TIE deienaants reply that the same matters set
on &c tfiai Of thc eecuent eut and were received
and t1lly considered t!y The Court and jury, the
eSs .as oe.nS !oana aelnst III appellant that tbe
as io!!ows Ever, jnd:raeu III the action Of eject.
mep1. rendered upon verdict, shau be conclusive
party acainst whom the same Is rendered and
aea,nst ~ person; claiming nom through under
,ass, rnsn ps = s;5 b ,t1e acesos ssE TIE
not Involved In this case; that had she compsinaut
wtsbsd 10 liuFzte tie respective itIes Of hintelf
hate fled hts btll before verdict md jndcmeui had
passed agntntt him IN the aeuon OF ejectmeut But
ne TOOK The chances Of to tEa!s At aw. in both OF
evidences. and with the came witnesees,
acu a. At the same term Of the Court at which
the final 1nugment was rendered, flied bis hIil ia
thi1 csnse. which abased BY the death OF Brown,
and ~. a5le.ward sr!tred IN its present form
against bis heirx. This YVES too lstc. Tor he had
had hle day IN cnns+ and naobt to be cpne,unet ~
.he resa!t. i Is not denied b. complainant that
ta iore. and wholly unpaid. and the oldest lien on
the property. Or TINT the execution WIS regularly
Issued, levied and returned The psoperty VAS sold
for the small SUM tet up, because title ras H.
volyed, and II was not deemed north more On tha,
account. The defence Of former recovery Of de-
!endsnts sGanst eompaainan,s Il fully made ont IL
fhe deapce which shoHs furthe-, thar the e4me A.
tAck upon The Judgment title made IN that case
aud failed u II also claued that Brown wae
BONA Tdt purchas ser from 1enks for valuable con-
sdeIatIun+ proved 10 have been acsually paid This
shoald protect The appeIlees who hold Ende1 hin, a.
peatJ al law