Neblett v. Macfarland
| Decision Date | 01 October 1875 |
| Citation | 23 L.Ed. 471,92 U.S. 101 |
| Parties | NEBLETT v. MACFARLAND |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.
This is a suit in equity to set aside a deed of conveyance of a plantation known as 'Mossland,' in the State of Louisiana, executed by the appellee on the 19th of September, 1868, when temporarily residing in England. Macfarland, the complainant, who is the appellee in this court, alleged that the conveyance had been procured by the false and fraudulent representations of the appellant and his fater, Sterling Neblett.
The appellant, in his answer, alleged that the consideration for such conveyance was the surrender and cancellation of a bond for $14,464.51 executed by the appellee to Sterling Neblett, and by the latter indorsed to the appellant. The court below decreed that the deed of the complainant, conveying to the defendant the plantation in the bill of complaint described and designated as 'Mossland,' be, and the same is, declared null and void and of no effect, and that the title to the said plantation is declared to be vested in the said complainant to the same extent as if said deed had never been executed.
That within thirty days the defendant make, execute, and deliver to the complainant a deed reconveying said plantation to him in fee-simple; and, in default thereof, that the decree shall have the same operation and effect as the execution and delivery of said deed.
But neither the execution and delivery of such deed nor this decree shall in any wise affect the lien of said defendant on said plantation, created by the deed of trust thereon to secure the said bond for $14,464.51.
That the original of said bond, now on file in this cause, be delivered up to the defendant, unaffected by any indorsement of credit or payment thereon; but this decree shall be without prejudice to any right which the defendant has under the bond and mortgage which he derived by the assignment of Sterling Neblett, but they shall have the same force and effect as if the deed had not been made, or any cancellation of the bond taken place.
From this decree Neblett appealed to this court, on the ground that the payment of Macfarland's bond was not made a condition precedent to the reconveyance of the property to him.
Mr. W. Alex Gordon for the appellant.
Mr. John A. Campbell, Mr. E. M. Hudson, and Mr. Walker Fearn, for the appellee.
The allegation of error in this case is confined to a single point. In his brief the counsel for the appellant says, 'The court erred in not making the payment of our bond a condition precedent to the reconveyance of the plantation, as set forth in our motion for a new trial; and on this ground, and from this point of the decree, do we appeal and ask for relief.'
The action was brought to set aside the conveyance of a plantation in Louisiana, made by Macfarland to the appellant Neblett, upon the allegation that the conveyance was obtained by the fraudulent acts and representations of Neblett and his father.
The only consideration given, or professed to be given, by Neblett for the conveyance, was the cancellation of a certain bond for the sum of $14,464.51, executed by Macfarland to Sterling Neblett, the father, and alleged to be the property of Henry Neblett.
The court below adjudged the transaction to be fraudulent directed the execution of a deed reconveying the property, and ordered the return and redelivery of the bond for $14,464.51, unaffacted by any indorsement of credit or payment thereon, and the same, with the mortgage made for its security, to retain the same lien thereon and the same force and effect as if the deed had not been made, or any cancellation of the bond taken place.
The complaint now made is, that, instead of directing a return of the bond in specie as a condition for the return of the land, the court should have directed the payment of the amount of money secured thereby.
In cases of this character the general principle is, that he who seeks equity must do equity; that the party against whom relief is sought shall be remitted to the position he occupied before the transaction complained of. The court proceeds on the principle, that, as the transaction ought never to have taken place, the parties are to be placed as far as possible in the situation in which they would have stood if there had never been any such transaction. Bellamy v. Sabine, 2 Phil. 425; Samy v. King, 5 H. L. 627; W. B. of Scotland v. Addie, L. R. 1 Scotch App. Cas. 162; Gatley v. Newell, 9 Ind. 572; Johnson v. Jones, 13 Sm. & M. 580; Kerr on Fraud,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gannett Co., Inc. v. Register Pub. Co.
...law case, Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. Pat Ryan & Associates, supra, and a hundred-year-old Supreme Court case, Neblett v. MacFarland, 92 U.S. 101, 104, 23 L.Ed. 471 (1875), for the proposition that "it is no objection to a restoration of property received on a fraudulent sale that it has fa......
-
Kesinger v. Burtrum
...Sales, Section 766, p. 898; Black on Rescission and Cancellation, Vol. 2, Section 618, loc. cit. 1426. Consult also Neblett v. Macfarland, 92 U.S. 101, 23 L.Ed. 471; Darelius v. Commonwealth Mortgage Co., 152 Minn. 128, 188 N.W. 208, 211(4); Barron v. Myers, 146 Mich. 510, 109 N.W. 862, 863......
-
Smiht v. Foto
...within the jurisdiction of the court.’' This case goes beyond the rule in Michigan. No one may profit by his own fraud. Neblett v. Macfarland, 92 U.S. 101, 23 L.Ed. 471. The right of the court to set aside a decree for fraud is well established. Duncan v. Lyon, 3 Johns. Ch., N.Y., 351, 8 Am......
-
Comm'r of Banks v. Chase Sec. Corp.
...N.E. 764,59 Am.Rep. 119;Rackemann v. Riverbank Improvement Co., 167 Mass. 1, 5, 44 N.E. 990,57 Am.St.Rep. 427;Neblett v. Macfarland, 92 U.S. 101, 104, 23 L.Ed. 471; Am.Law Inst.Restatement, Contracts, § 349, Comment (b). These rights were not parts of the shares originally purchased, but we......
-
CHAPTER 5
...as a purchaser has a reasonable time in which to make election of such remedy after discovery of the fraud, Neblett v. Macfarland, 92 U.S. 101, 105 (1875), but he cannot after such discovery treat the property as his own and exercise acts of ownership over it which show an election to regar......