Court Opinion

ID: 9841737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 20:03:59.132227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:30.325389
License: Public Domain

Me. Justiob Beaxíley
dissenting.
I dissent from the judgment in this case so far as it directs the bill to be dismissed by the court below for want of equita- ' ble jurisdiction. The complainant had been induced to give •up a contract for cattle made to him by the defendant, and to accept in lieu of it an assignment from the defendant of a contract' which he had from a third person who was insolvent, and whose insolvency was not known by the complainant, but was known by the defendant, though he asserted that The third person was entirely responsible. The bill seeks to abro*355gate and, set' aside the assignment and to restore to com-' plainant, Ms . original contract, on account of the-fraud and misrepresentation practised lipón Mm. Having been induced to pay $15,000-in the transaction, and suffered a large amount of damages, he adds to the relief sought a prayer to have-damages assessed. and decreed, . This is the case made by the hill. I think it is clearly within the scope of eqmty jurisdio, tion, both pn account of the fraud, and from the nature of relief asked by the complainant, namely, the cancellation of an agreement, and the reinstatement of a contract which he had been fraudulently induced to. cancel.' If the bill had prayed nothing else, it seems to me clear that it would have presented a case for equity. A court of law.could not adequate relief.. The existence of the assignment :and the cam cellatipn of the first agreement would embarrass the plamtiff; in an action at law. It is. different from the case of a lost note or bond. Fraud is ■ charged, and documents exist which in equity ought not to exist. I think the complainant, is enti-' tied to have the fraudulent transaction wiped out, and to be restored to his original status.