31 Mich. 367 | Mich. | 1875
The real grievance alleged by complainant is, that defendants combined to defraud him, and the substance of the transaction, and its incidents, which he relates at much length, may be stated from the bill as follows:
The defendant Stewart resided in St. Joseph, Berrien, county, and owned a stock of goods, including a quantity of boots and shoes. This property was at Bangor, Van Burén county, and was valued by Stewart at some fourteen thousand dollars, and he wished to sell it. One Sherwin, residing in Illinois, owned a tract of about two hundred acres of land in Berrien county, which he desired to dispose of. Complainant was an acquaintance of Sherwin, and after some negotiations it was agreed between the different parties, that Stewart should transfer to complainant the boots and shoes and one-half of the remainder of the stock, and that complainant, in consideration thereof, should procure Sherwin, upon certain terms agreed on between Sherwin and complainant, to convey the land to Stewart, but subject to an existing mortgage on it of one thousand dollars; that Carroll should buy the remaining half of the stock of Stewart, at two thousand five hundred dollars;
The bill waived answer on oath, and asked no preliminary or final relief by injunction. Neither did it seek to get rid of the deed made to Stewart, or to obtain the land conveyed by Stewart to complainant.
The defendants answered separately, and denied the fraud charged, and most of the material matter tending to show the grievance alleged in the bill. Their account of the transaction was in substance, that complainant was not known to Stewart in the transaction as vendee, or as a party in any way to the trade concerning- the goods, and that Carroll was sole vendee.
They further explicitly claimed that the bill did not make a case of equitable cognizance, and insisted that his remedy, if any, was at law.
Proofs having been taken, the court on final hearing-decreed that the defendants, within forty days after the 11th of August, 1871, should pay to complainant; or his solicitor, two thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars, with interest from that date at seven per cent., together with complainant’s costs, and that he should have execution therefor. The defendant Stewart thereupon appealed, whilst the defendant Carroll acquiesced in the decree.
It appears to me quite impossible, in the face of the objection taken and insisted on, to sustain this decree without sanctioning the right to come into equity in all cases to
If the right contended for and carried out by the decree can be maintained, no reason is perceived why, upon the same principle, a party claiming to have been cheated in a horse trade, or in a purchase of any chattels where the amount is sufficient, may not at his election proceed to sue in chancery for damages, and preclude an investigation before a jury.
The principles and course of practice of the court are, however, not in harmony with any such procedure.
It is admitted that the books commonly say that equity has jurisdiction in all cases of fraud, but every one knows that the proposition is not to be accepted literally. It must always be understood in connection with the genius and specific remedial powers of the court. These confine it absolutely to civil suits. They also confine it, when the point is seasonably and properly made and insisted on, to transactions where, in consequence of the indicated state of facts, there appears to be ground for employing some mode of action, or some kind of aid or relief not practicable in a court of law, but allowable in equity.
In the present case no injunction was called for, and there was no ground for discovery, and no discovery was sought, as the bill waived an answer on oath.
No claim was set up to have the deed from Sherwin to Stewart set aside, or to have the land conveyed to complainant, and no case is made to warrant such a claim, since the bill contains nothing to show that third persons may not have acquired interests on the faith of Stewart’s title.
Indeed, no circumstances are set forth to call specially for equitable intervention or for any assistance or mode of redress peculiar to chancery procedure.
The facts as given, and the case as shaped, point to just
The case, then, was really of legal, and not in strict propriety of equitable cognizance.
The objection was timely made and urged, and complainant was bound to regard it; and unless it is to be maintained that in all cases standing on the same principle a complaining party is to be allowed by his election to try in chancery, and prevent an investigation by jury, the point made by appellant must be sustained, and in my judgment it should be. — Story’s Eq. J., §§ 72, 73, 74; 1 Spence Eq. J., 691 to 700; Adams’ Eq., Introduction, pp. 57, 58; Shepard v. Sanford, 3 Barb. Ch. R., 127; Bradley v. Bosley, 1 Barb. Ch. R., 125; Monk v. Harper, 3 Edw. Ch. R., 109 ; Pierpont v. Fowle, 2 Wood. & M., 23; Vose v. Philbrook, 3 Story C. C., 335; Insurance Co. v. Bailey, 13 Wall., 616; Hipp v. Babin, 19 How., 271; Parker v. Winnipiseogee Co., 2 Black, 545; Jones v. Newhall, 115 Mass., 244; Suter v. Matthews, id., 253; Foley v. Hill, 2 H. L. Cas., 28; Crampton v. Varna R. W. Co., L. R., 7 Ch. Ap., 562 ; 3 Eng., 509 ; Hoare v. Bremridge L. R., 14 Eq. Cas., 522, 3 Eng., 824, cited by Lord Hatherly with approbation in Ochsenbein v. Papelier, L. R., 8 Ch. Ap., 695, 6 Eng., 576; Kemp. v. Tucker, L. R., 8 Ch. Ap., 369, 5 Eng., 596 ; Warne v. Morris, C. & B. Co., 1 Halst., 410; Haythorn v. Marqerew, 3 Halst., 324.
There would be more reason than there is for wishing to escape from the objection noticed, if complainant’s version of the affair was placed by the proofs beyond fair controversy; but it is not. The evidence is extremely conflicting in regard to the true nature of the transaction, and there is room for arguing in favor of the theory advanced on each side. The case is, then, specifically suited for investigation by jury, where the witnesses can be seen and their trustworthiness be better understood.
I think that, so far as the defendant Stewart is con