Court Opinion

ID: 5433077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-08 17:49:02.330934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:31:42.439826
License: Public Domain

On the re-hearing, the opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray.
Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
A re-argument was had in this case, upon a suggestion that advances had been made by Chenery to Hutchinson, after the delivery of the property in question.
If the relation of the parties had béen that of bailor and bailee, or pledgor and pledgee, then there would be no doubt but the plaintiff might assert his claim for these advances, thus made upon the property in his possession. There is no evidence however that the original contract was ever abandoned. In fact, it appears from the testimony of Hutchinson that these same advances were contemplated and agreed ón at the time of the original sale or mortgage. Under these circumstances the contracts must be regarded as an entirety, and however honest the intentions of the parties, the law from motives of public policy having-declared the contract void, all subsequent acts under it must relate to its inception, and are alike tainted with fraud.
*123We axe disposed to regard this as a hard case, but do not see how the consequences can be avoided, as any other rule would enable a party to cure a fraudulent conveyance by subsequent payments or advancements made in good faith.
The whole contract is indivisible, and must stand upon the legality or bona Jides of its inception. The judgment heretofore rendered is affirmed.