Duerson v. Semonin

Citation29 S.W. 635
PartiesDUERSON v. SEMONIN et al.
Decision Date19 February 1895
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

Appeal from circuit court, Crittenden county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Semonin and Dixon against W. K. Duerson. From a judgment for Semonin and Dixon, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Blue &amp Blue, for appellant.

D. H French and S. Hodge, for appellees.

GRACE J.

This is the third time this case has been up for review before the superior court. The court, on the same state of facts that yet appears in this record,-having on the 6th day of May 1891, rendered a decision, in which, passing on the question of the fraudulent conduct of the appellants therein, being appellees in this appeal, in obtaining the judgment of the superior court on their former appeal in 1882, and of the obtention of their judgment in the Crittenden circuit court against defendant, M. S. Duerson, for some nine hundred and odd dollars and interest, in accordance with the mandate and opinion of the superior court of 1882,-said that the judgment of the lower court in refusing to subject certain property therein mentioned as having been mortgaged by defendant, M S. Duerson, to Mrs. Earhart, to the payment of the judgment of plaintiffs, Semonin, Dixon, and others, against M. S. Duerson, must be affirmed, by reason of the fraudulent conduct of appellants in said suit, saying: "It by no means follows, because a party has a judgment and a legal right, that a chancellor will interpose to assist him in the enforcement of this legal right, if it has been acquired by unfair and unconscionable means. 'He who comes into equity must come with clean hand;' or, as it is sometimes expressed, 'He that hath committed inequity shall not have equity.' The maxim assumes that a suitor asking the aid of a court of equity has himself been guilty of conduct in violation of the fundamental principles of equity jurisprudence, and therefore refuses him all recognition and relief with reference to the subject-matter or transaction in question. It says that whenever a party, who, as actor, seeks to set the judicial machinery in motion, and obtain some remedy, has violated conscience or good faith, or other equitable principle, in his prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him, and the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf, to acknowledge his right, or to award him any remedy,"-citing Pom. Eq. Jur. § 397. Proceeding, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT