Hamilton v. McLean
Decision Date | 08 June 1897 |
Citation | 41 S.W. 224,139 Mo. 678 |
Parties | Hamilton, Appellant, v. McLean et al |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. -- Hon. A. M. Woodson, Judge.
Affirmed.
James F. Pitts for appellant.
(1) This is a proceeding in equity by which plaintiff seeks to set aside a decree in partition, and to cancel a forged deed upon which that decree is based. The lower court on demurrer dismissed the bill. (2) A forgery, except by consent expressed or implied, can not be made the basis of a right in any form whatever. Remington Paper Co. v O'Dougherty, 16 Hun. 594; Jackson v Summerville, 13 Pa. St. 359, 368; Rowland v. Jones, 2 Heisk. (Tenn.) 321; Dunn v. Miller, 96 Mo. 324.
M. A. Reed and B. R. Vineyard for respondents.
(1) The fraud which will justify a court in setting aside and annulling a final judgment or decree is confined to fraud exercised in the procurement of the judgment or decree which is attacked, and does not extend to any fraud on which the original suit was founded. Nichols v. Stevens, 123 Mo. 96, loc. cit. 116; Irvine v. Leyh, 124 Mo. 361; Oxley Stove Co. v. Butler Co., 121 Mo. 630; Smith v. Sims, 77 Mo. 274; Murphy v. DeFrance, 105 Mo. 64; Richardson v. Stowe, 102 Mo. 33; Murphy v. DeFrance, 101 Mo. 151; Irvine v. Leyh, 102 Mo. 206-207; Davis v. Wade, 58 Mo.App. 645; Mayor v. Brady, 115 N.Y. 599, 614-618; U. S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61; 1 Herman on Estoppel, 457-461. (2) The above line of Missouri cases establishes beyond any question that in this State courts of equity will not vacate judgments merely because they are based upon a cause of action which may be vitiated by fraud, for this is a valid and meritorious defense which may be interposed in the first suit. And unless its interposition is prevented by fraud of an adversary, it can not be asserted against the judgment. Nichols v. Stevens, 123 Mo. 116; U. S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 66; Vance v. Burbank, 101 U.S. 514; 1 Herman on Estoppel, 458, 459. (4) The plaintiff's petition is defective in failing to show diligence in discovering the alleged forgery of that deed, and that he was free from fault in introducing it himself in evidence, and in failing to show that he acted with promptness in seeking to be released from its effects. All these are required before a contract formally executed or a judgment duly entered can be annulled. Lewis v. Land Company, 124 Mo. 687, 688; Taylor v. Short, 107 Mo. 384; Estes v. Reynolds, 75 Mo. 563; Lapp v. Ryan, 23 Mo.App. 439; Hart v. Hendlin, 43 Mo. 175; Grimes v. Saunders, 93 U.S. 55; Disbrow v. Secor, 58 Conn. 35; Hicks v. Ferdinand et al., 20 F. 111. Common prudence required the plaintiff in the first suit to examine the deed for himself, or "forever after to hold his peace." It was accessible to him. He read it in evidence. Besides, if at any time it had been in possession of the other side, and he had desired an inspection thereof, he could have secured its production through an order of court. His want of prudence is inexcusable. Lewis v. Land Company, 124 Mo. 687. (5) If the plaintiff had alleged in his petition in this suit that he had relied on the allegations of defendants' answer in the original litigation, charging the deed in controversy to have been duly executed by the grantor therein, which he hints at but does not directly charge to be a fact, it would not have availed him in this action. In that original suit the parties were dealing at arm's length, and neither had a right to rely on any allegations in the pleadings of the other. Haas v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63; Lewis v. Land Company, 124 Mo. 687; Smith v. Sims, 77 Mo. 274; Railroad v. Ennor, 116 Ill. 63, 64; 1 Herman on Estoppel, 458. (6) The Supreme Court was the proper court to grant the leave to open up the original suit. It not only failed to grant such leave in its decree, but refused on an application for such leave (which application it heard on its merits) to consent to the opening up of the case for further investigation. Southard v. Russell, 16 How. 547; Kimberly v. Arms, 40 F. 548. (7) In proceedings of this kind to open up and set aside a final decree regularly rendered, where the ground of relief is based on fraud charged to have been exercised by the successful party, there must be an affidavit of merits. 1 Black on Judgments, sec. 347; Brick v. Burr, 47 N.J.Eq. 189; Livingston v. Hubbs, 3 Johns. Ch. 126, Kent Ch.; Osgood v. Smock, 40 N.E. 37; 2 Thompson on Trials, sec. 2762. (8) Nor will a party in this State be permitted to try his case on one theory, and afterward try it again on a different theory. Bray v. Seligman, 75 Mo. 31; Bettes v. Magoon, 85 Mo. 580; Whetstone v. Shaw, 70 Mo. 575; Holmes v. Braidwoods, 82 Mo. 617.
This is a proceeding in equity by which plaintiff seeks to set aside a decree of partition, rendered by the circuit court of Buchanan county in pursuance of a mandate of the Supreme Court. The petition, leaving off the formal parts, is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Broussard v. Mason
...Under the circumstances here presented this court has the right to adjudicate the equities of the cause upon the merits. Hamilton v. McLean, 139 Mo. 678; Bates v. Hamilton, 144 Mo. 1. (2) An officer or director of a corporation who purchases its property at execution sale becomes a trustee ......
-
Brannock v. Magoon
... ... v. Railroad, 54 Mo.App. 636; Bobb v. Bobb, 89 ... Mo. 411; Draper v. Shoot, 25 Mo. 197; Donnell v ... Wright, 147 Mo. 647; Hamilton v. McLean, 139 ... Mo. 678, 169 Mo. 51; Bates v. Hamilton, 144 Mo. 1 ... (2) The title to a promissory note may be transferred by a ... written ... ...