Court Opinion

ID: 6632786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:38:23.985251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:58:59.352126
License: Public Domain

Martin Ch. J.:
We think the objection that Joseph W. Hewitt was not made a party to the bill in such manner as to put his rights in issue, by the general averment under rule 91 of his being a subsequent purchaser, is well taken. This averment is only to be made where the fact of being a subsequent purchaser or incumbrancer appears by the record. In this case, the record gives the title of Joseph W. Hewitt priority to the mortgage, he having recorded his deed first. In such a case, the rule is that the complainant must file his bill specially — if he seeks to avoid the title thus acquired — with distinct averments of the facts and allegations of the fraud which he claims invalidates such title.
The decree must be affirmed.
The other Justices concurred.