Case Name: Morris ex dem. Ludlow vs. Gill
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1790-09
Citations: 1 D. Chip. 49
Docket Number: 
Parties: Morris ex dem. Ludlow vs. Gill.
Judges: 
Reporter: Chipman, D.
Volume: 1
Pages: 49–50

Head Matter:
Morris ex dem. Ludlow vs. Gill.
Windsor,
September, 1790.
Fraud fully proved invalidates every transaction, as well at law, as ÍQ equity. If A. convey land to B., who neglects to record his deed, and A. convey the same land to C., who procures his deed to be ‘first recorded, yet if C. at the time he received his deed from A. had knowledge of the prior conveyance to B, his deed is fraudulent and void, and B, will hold the land.
EJECTMENT for lands in Weathersfield, originally granted to H. Wentworth. Wentworth conveyed to G. Alexander 9th April, 1767 — Alexander to Ludlow, 6th June, 1767. Wentworth’s deed to Alexander, proved and recorded, May 12, 1787, and also the deed to Ludlow as appeared in evidence on the part of the plaintiff.
On the part of the defendant, a deed was produced from Went-worth'to Bean, dated 28th Dec. 1780, acknowledged and recorded soon after. 2. A deed from Bean to Gill and others, dated Dec. 28,1781, acknowledged and recorded.
It was proved on the part of the plaintiff, that Bean and the purchasers under him, had some time before Bean’s purchase from Wentworth, full and repeated notice of Ludlow’s title from Went-worth through Alexander. It was insisted, that by the statute of this State, the legal title was in the vendees of Bean, as his deed was first recorded.

Opinion:
Chipman, Ch. J.,
in his charge to the Jury, gave it as his opinion, that although Bean had taken advantage of the legal form re» quired by the statute, in first recording his deed, yet, as both Bean and his vendees had notice of Ludlow's title, which was an equitable one, the whole is fraudulent, as against Ludlow. That it would be mischievous to allow such fraudulent acts to prevail in a Court of law, only to turn tiie parties over to a Court of equity, where they would be immediately set aside.
Fraud, if fully proved, invalidates every transaction, as well at law as in equity; nor can a man validate a fraudulent act by bring-big it under the letter of a statute, any more than under the letter of a rule of the common law. Had there been a bona fide sale, in this case, to third persons, without notice, it might have had another consideration.
Verdict for the plaintiff.