Case Name: Philip C. Pendleton v. James Galloway and others
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1839-12
Citations: 9 Ohio 178
Docket Number: 
Parties: Philip C. Pendleton v. James Galloway and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 9
Pages: 176–179

Head Matter:
Philip C. Pendleton v. James Galloway and others.
A hill in equity to impeach a decree or judgment for fraud, must set forth the-circumstances which constitute the fraud, particularly and precisely.
Such a bill will not he sustained after an acquiescence in the decree for twenty-live years.
Bill in Chancery. From Greene. The complainants allege, among other things, that at the August term of the Supreme Court iu 1833, they obtained a decree against one John Campbell, a non-resident* and Bobert Bogges a resident of Greene county, for five thousand two hundred and fifty-eight dollars, ninety-four cents, with interest and costs, and siso for the control of a judgment before recovered by said Campbell against said Bogges, for two thousand five hundred and three dollars, forty-five cents, in the Circuit court of the United States for the district of Ohio, to apply so much as might be made on the judgment, in part satisfaction of the decree. The complainant states that he has since ascertained that Bogges is wholly insolvent, so that nothing can be made of him ; that Campbell never resided in Ohio, and has no known property in the state, except certain entries and surveys of Virginia military lands, in the name of Archibald Campbell, for about six thousand acres, part of Warrant, No. 3001, issued to his father Bichard Campbell, for military services ; that John Campbell failed in Virginia before 1808, involving the complainant in a large amount, in part embraced in the aforesaid decree. That about 1808, John Campbell entered the army, was marched into the southwest and never returned, having, before he left, on the 8th of July, *1808, executed a deed to the complainant and one Newkirk, conveying all his interest, as heir at law, in said surveys, and a claim against said Bogges, to idemnify him against his said liabilities : that in Feb. 1800, Bichard Campbell, jr. another son and heir of Campbell, the warrant holder, conveyed these surveys to one John Baker, intended only as a mortgage to secure a debt due him, and Baker having willed all his lands to his son and two daughters, soon after died, and the heirs and devisees of Baker, in May, 1813, filed their bill in the Common Pleas of Greene county against John Campbell and others, setting forth this conveyance, but falsely and fraudulently representing it as the bona fide absolute deed of Bichard, jr. who was duly authorized by the other heirs to make it; and that after it was received, it was sent to Hamilton county for record, but by accident was lost. They prayed in that bill to be quieted in their title to the surveys. The complainant alleges that John Campbell and others had no notice in fact of that suit, the service being only perfected by advertisement; that the allegations in'their bill were false and fraudulent; Bichard having no authority from the other heirs to convey, and the conveyance itself being conditional and not absolute as alleged; and therefore prays that said decree may be set aside as false and fraudulent; the land subjected to his debt in the hands of Galloway and others who purchased with full notice.
The defendants answer, denying fraud, and setting up the decree in Baker’s case. They- demur to the residue of the complainant’s bill.
Wm. Ellsberry, for the plaintiff,
cited 2 Bin. 455 ; 4 Ohio, 458 ; Sug. Vend. 303 ; 1 Har. Ch. 146; Rob. on Fr. 521; 1 Pr. Wms. 735, 737 ; 2 Pr. Wms. 73, 4, 5; 3 Pr. Wms. 104, 111, 371; 1 Johns, Ch. 194; 4 Johns. Ch. 202; 5 Johns. Ch. 69 ; 1 Ves. 287 ; 4 Ohio, 492.
Odlin,' Schenck, and Gr. J. Smith, for the defendants,
cited, Coop. Eq. 96, 217; 1 Johns. Ch. 194; 4 Johns. Ch. 202 ; 5 Johns. Ch. 69 ; 2 Pr. Wms. 111, 371; 1 Ves. 287; 4 Ohio, 492 : 5 Johns. 566; 4 Kent. C. 454, e.

Opinion:
By the court,
Wood, J.
Two questions are made in this case. 1. Is the fraud set up in the bill of the kind required to impeach a decree ; and if so, is it sufficiently set forth? 2. Can a decree be impeached for fraud after the lapse of more than twenty-five years ?
The first proposition, in .our view, is of no importance in deciding this case, because the second is decisive of it. It is, however, a rule ^applicable as well to decrees in equity as to judgments at law, that when a bill is filed to impeach either on the ground of fraud, the particular and pricise circumstances which constitute the fraud must be stated : the acts done, or the words spoken which constitute the fraud must be set forth. Expressio falsi vel suppressso veri, or some fault, design, or wicked and evil intention, must be clearly set out in the bill, to which the defendant is called to answer : it will not do to impute mere laches to impeach a solemn adjudication of a court of justice. 4 Ohio, 492 ; Coop. Eq. 217 ; 1 Johns. Ch. 194. The only charge in this bill is, that Baker's heirs, in their suit against Campbell and others to quiet their title, did not set out a collateral writing given to Richard Campbell, showing his deed intended as a mortgage, without charging their knowledge that such writing was within their control. If such writing existed, it was matter of defence, and should have come from the other side.
2. The decree sought to be impeached was rendered more than twenty-five years since, and the long acquiescence of the complainants, and the too obvious staleness of the claim, should not call into activity the energies of a court of equity for its relief. Lord Camden, in Smith v. Clay, 3 Brown Ch. 640, said a court of equity is never active to relieve, when a party has slept on his rights, and acquiesced for a great length of time. Where reasonable diligence is wanting, this court is passive and does nothing. Laches and negligence are always discountenanced, and therefore from the beginning there was always a limitation to suits in this court. Lord North, in Fitler v. Lord Macclesfield, declared, that though there was no limitation to a bill of review, yet after twenty-two years he would not review a decree; that interest reipublicce, ut sit finis litium, was a maxim that had always prevailed in equity, without an act of parliament. A court of equity is governed by the circumstances of the case before it. 2 Story Eq. 739. We think the circumstances disclosed in this case, require of us to sustain the demurrer to the bill.
Bill dismissed.