Lucas v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 07 April 1821
• Citation: 10 Ky. 244
• Parties: Robert W. Lucas v. Martin Mitckell et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

10 Ky. 244

Robert W. Lucas v. Martin Mitckell et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 7, 1821

ON A WRIT OF ERROR TO REVERSE A DECREE OF THE WARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

Hardin for plaintiff.

Crittenden for defendant.

OPINION

THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

On the 1st of September, 1812, Grider executed his bond to Thomas for the conveyance of 200 acres of his head right survey when Thomas paid the state price; and Thomas, in consideration thereof, paid to Grider $150, and gave his obligation to Grider to build a house of a certain description. In July, 1813, Thomas sold the land to Mitchell who agreed to refund to Thomas what he had paid to Grider and to discharge the obligation Thomas gave to Grider for building the house; Thomas delivered to Mitchell the original plat and certificate of survey, and agreed to assign to him the bond on Grider for the conveyance, which was not then done, because the bond was not present.

This contract, though verbal, was completely fulfilled on the part of Mitchell by satisfying Thomas what he had paid to Grider and discharging and taking up the obligation which Thomas had given to Grider, and Mitchell shortly afterwards took possession of the land, but neglected from time to time to obtain an assignment of the bond which Thomas held upon Grider for the conveyance of the land.

With a full knowledge of these facts, Lucas, in March, 1815 procured an assignment to himself from Thomas of the bond which he held on Grider for the land; and Mitchell having heard of this, got Grider to assign to him the plat and certiflcate of survey, upon giving his bond to indemnify Grider for so doing. The plat and certificate of survey Mitchell caused to be registered, and Lucas having paid the state price, a patent was issued in the name of Mitchell for the land.

In this situation of things Lucas filed his bill in chancery against Mitchell, Grider and Thomas, praying that Mitchell may be compelled to convey the title to him; or if that can not be obtained, that Grider may be decreed to pay him the value of the land, and for general relief.

The court, upon a final hearing, decreed the bill to be dismissed with costs; and from that decree Lucas has appealed to this court, and by the assignment of error, contends,

1st, That the circuit court ought to have sustained the bill and granted him relief; and if not,

2dly, That the bill ought to have been dismissed without prejudice to his remedy at law; and

3dly, That the decree for costs is erroneous.

We can perceive no principle upon which Lucas can be entitled to the aid of a court of equity.

Mitchell's contract for the purchase of the land from Thomas, having been fairly made and fully complied with on his part unquestionably gave him a moral right to the fulfilment of the contract on the part of Thomas. Consequently, the assignment to Lucas, by Thomas, of the bond which he held upon Grider, was a manifest fraud upon that right; and as Lucas, previous to the assignment, had a knowledge of Mitchell's contract, and his performance of it, he must be considered as a particeps criminis with Thomas. Whether, as defendants allege, and as is proven by the deposition of Thomas, Lucas extorted from him the...