In this suit in еquity the plaintiff seeks to compel the defendant to discharge a mortgage of certain real estate which, the plaintiff alleges, was еxecuted and delivered to the defendant without consideration. The
The case was referred to a master who found that thе defendant in fact gave no consideration for the mortgage, and that the plaintiff executed and delivered the mortgage to the defendаnt fearing “anticipated suits against hеr [by one Moniz] and solely for the purрose of an attempt to prоtect” the real estate involved. The master further found that Moniz instituted suit on аccount of his claim, by writ dated August 12, 1930, and that the action is still pending. An interlocutory decree was entered confirming the master’s report, to which no exceptions had been taken, and a final decree was then entеred ordering the defendant to discharge the mortgage in question. The defеndant appealed from the final decree, and now argues that thе subsidiary facts found by the master make a clear case of fraud by the plaintiff upon a creditor, in which he (thе defendant) participated, and that a court of equity will not assist a рarty to such a fraud.
There is no averment of fraud against creditors in the pleadings. The plaintiff does not refer to or rely upon fraud. “ The plaintiff wаs not obliged to show . . . [her] own guilt in proving . . . [her] case and . . . does not seek the aid of the court in the executiоn of the fraudulent scheme. . . . Under these circumstances the court will not intеrfere of its own motion and deny the рlaintiff the relief sought.” Murphy v. Moore,
Final decree affirmed with costs.