French v. Raymond
| Citation | 82 Vt. 156,72 A. 324 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
| Decision Date | 19 March 1909 |
| Parties | FRENCH v. RAYMOND. |
Appeal in Chancery, Windham. County; George M. Powers, Chancellor.
Bill by Watson French against T. Raymond. A demurrer to the bill was overruled. Decree rendered for orator, and defendant appeals. Reversed, demurrer sustained, and cause remanded.
Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and MUNSON, WATSON, and HASELTON, JJ.
Herbert G. & Frank E. Barber, for appellant. Chase & Daley and Gibson & Waterman, for appellee.
This is a bill in chancery to set aside an award between the parties, for that the defendant purposely and designedly testified falsely before the arbitrators concerning divers matters and things in issue and on trial before them, whereby and by means whereof the arbitrators were cheated and deceived into awarding for the defendant and against the orator. This is the sum and substance of the bill, which is demurred to for want of equity, and the objection is well taken.
The orator says that fraud vitiates everything. But this maxim applies only when proof of fraud is admissible, and here proof of the fraud alleged is not admissible; for it is intrinsic, and not extrinsic, direct and not collateral. Thus, in Camp v. Ward, 69 Vt. 286, 37 Atl. 747, 60 Am. St. Rep. 929, we held that the acts for which courts of equity will, for fraud, set aside or annul a judgment or a decree between the same parties, rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, have relation to fraud extrinsic or collateral to the matter on which the judgment or decree was rendered. In support of this holding we referred to some of our own cases, and to United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61, 25 L. Ed. 93, where it is said that when, by reason of something done by the successful party, there was in fact no adversary trial nor decision of the issue in the case, equity will grant relief, but that it is well settled that the court will not set aside a judgment because it is founded on a fraudulent instrument or perjured testimony, nor for any other matter that was actually presented and considered in the judgment assailed. The judgment there sought to be set aside was based upon a land grant that the successful party had himself falsely and fraudulently antedated, and thereby imposed upon the court the belief that it was made when the signer thereof had power to make it.
It makes no difference whether the perjury is suborned by the successful party or not, unless you...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosee v. Board of Trade of City of Chicago
...S.Ct. 1202, 16 L.Ed.2d 208; Newark Stereotypers' Union No. 18 v. Newark Morning Ledger Co. (3d Cir. 1968), 397 F.2d 594; French v. Raymond (1909), 82 Vt. 156, 72 A. 324. We have found no Illinois case which expressly considers this issue. In view of our conclusion that the arbitration award......
-
R. E. Bean Const. Co. v. Middlebury Associates
...in this context is without effect. Vermont has a strong tradition of upholding arbitration awards whenever possible. See French v. Raymond, 82 Vt. 156, 72 A. 324 (1909) (award upheld despite assertion that it was based on perjured testimony). Awards are liberally construed and every possibl......
-
Karppinen v. Karl Kiefer Machine Co.
...so as to permit a collateral attack on a judgment rendered upon perjured testimony. As to the rule in equity, compare French v. Raymond, 82 Vt. 156, 72 A. 324, with Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia v. Allesina, 49 Or. 316, 89 P. 960; as to the rule under the comparable New York Statute, see Jacob......
-
John E. Deyette v. Eugenie Deyette. Eugenie Deyette v. John E. Deyette
... ... given at the time, even though given by a party ... Camp v. Ward, 69 Vt. 286, 37 A. 747, 60 Am ... St. Rep. 929; French v. Raymond, 82 Vt ... 156, 72 A. 324, 137 Am. St. Rep. 994. It is said, however, ... that the petitioner in the present action is a stranger to ... ...