« PředchozíPokračovat »
(2 $2 III. 593, 118 N. E. 1004.) manded the cause, with directions to ties for her. Aside from disputed again refer it to a master in chan- questions there is no denial of the cery, to resume the hearing where fact that for several years before the the court took it up. This court death of Erastus, stocks, bonds, and granted a writ of certiorari to bring securities were contained in a safety the record here from the appellate deposit vault held jointly by him court for review.
and the complainant. After his death In case a bill is filed for an ac- the parties to this suit, with their counting and the right is disputed, solicitors, went to the safety deposit
the first question to Accounting
vault, and opened the box, and took question for be determined is out the securities. Some of them court.
whether there is appeared to belong to Erastus, and such a right which is found by the some to the complainant, and there court, and if the finding is in favor were others the ownership of which of the complainant the decree is in- was doubtful. It was impossible to terlocutory, to be followed by the determine the ownership of these accounting. In this case the court doubtful securities without evidence. heard all the evidence, both that It is not denied that the relations of which related to the right to an ac- the parties were confidential,-at counting and that which concerned least, in respect to some of their numerous items of the account. As business transactions,—and that the decree made no finding of any there were unsettled matters befact, and did not state an account tween them. The charge of the bill showing there was nothing due the that a trust existed and had never complainant, the only possible been
been settled was ground for dismissing the bill was proved, and a de- Accounting that complainant was not entitled to
cree dismissing the an accounting. It should not be pre- bill for want of equity was wrong. sumed that the court attempted to It is contended that the decree state an account in a case where, by dismissing the bill was justified on the chancery practice, the court two grounds: First, that the suit
could not do it, but Appeal-dis
was barred by the Statute of Limitamissal ot bill could, by an agree- tions; and, second, that the comfor accounting.
ment of the parties, plainant was not entitled to the rehear the evidence as to a right to an lief prayed for because she did not accounting. The conclusion was
come into a court of equity with contrary to the evidence, which
clean hands. The trust proved was clearly established the complainant's
a voluntary, continuing, equitable right to have an account between
trust in personal herself and the estate of her de
property which may
Trust-personal ceased brother stated. Erastus A.
be created by parol. Barnes died on January 7, 1909, in
Price v. Laing, 152 Ill. 380, 38 N. E. his sixtieth year, and they had lived
921; Maher v. Aldrich, 205 Ill. 242, together most of the time for thirty
68 N. E. 810. The Statute of Limiseven years, both being school-teach
tations does not begin to run against ers and unmarried, until the mar
such a trust until the trust is reriage of Erastus to the defendant,
pudiated or the trust relation beabout four months before his death.
tween the parties Each one had executed a will in fa
comes to an end.
actions-against vor of the other, the will of Erastus
The trust not hay, trust in perbeing revoked by his marriage.
ing been repudiated Their relations were most intimate
or denied by Erastus A. Barnes, the and confidential, and there was evi- statute did not begin to run until his dence of a great many witnesses death. Hancock v. Harper, 86 Ill. that Erastus received and took 445; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Hay, charge of money of the complainant, 119 Ill. 493, 10 N. E. 29; Horne v. and invested it in stocks and securi- Ingraham, 125 Ill. 198, 16 N. E.
868; Pierce v. Perry, 189 Mass. 332, been determined, the account is of 109 Am. St. Rep. 637, 75 N. E. 734; such a nature that the statement of 17 R. C. L. 795. The bill was filed it must be referred to a master in on January 4, 1910, within a year chancery. Where the items in an after the death of Erastus A. account are few, the court may state Barnes, and the suit was not barred the account; but where the account by the Statute of Limitations.
consists of many items, covering a He who comes into a court of great length of time, equity must come with clean hands, and the testimony to master. and one who does iniquity cannot is conflicting, the have equity; but that maxim is court cannot proceed to an account
limited in its appli- ing until the account has been Equitycation to where the stated by a
master, and obapplicable.
substance of the jections to the account settled by thing is inequitable, and the in- him. The duties of the court, the iquity must apply to the particular public interest, and the rights of litisubject-matter. It is not sufficient gants forbid the examination by the to bar relief that inequitable con- court of intricate and complex acduct should relate to the proof of counts. Brockman v. Aulger, 12 some item or some fact, and where Ill. 277; Sallee v. Morgan, 67 Ill. the origin of the claim is not in- 376; Payne v. Newcombe, 100 Ill.
equitable a fraudu- 611, 39 Am. Rep. 69; Beale v. Beale,
to it will not bar cated account cannot be stated by relief. Goodwin v. Hunt, 3 Yerg, the court even by agreement of the 124; 1 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 399; Chi- parties. Riner v. Touslee, 62 Ill. cago V. Union Stock Yards & 266; Mosier v. Norton, 83 Ill. 519; Transit Co. 164 Ill. 224, 35 L.R.A. French v. Gibbs, 105 Ill. 523. This 281, 45 N. E. 430; 10 R. C. L. 140. case, in which the court heard a vast The ground upon which it is amount of evidence and considered a claimed, in this case, that the com- record of over 10,000 pages, illusplainant could not have equity is
trates the importance and necessity that she had fabricated evidence.
of adherence to the settled rule of The claim is that twelve letters, pur chancery practice. Upon the reinporting to have been written by
statement of the case in the circuit Erastus A. Barnes, were forgeries. court, the cause is to be referred to a
a master in chancery to state the letters tending to show the relation
account upon the evidence already of the parties and there is no finding
in the record and any further eviin the decree as to the alleged for
dence the parties may desire to geries. But assuming that the court
offer. found the letters to be forgeries,
The appellate court ordered the such a fraudulent act as to items
costs of the appeal to that court to or portions of the Accounting
be taxed, one half to the complainequity-anclean account would not
ant and one half to the defendant as hands-forged bar relief as to othevidence.
administratrix, to be paid in due er items or claims,
course of administration, and that but would be proper for considera
order is assigned as error. Section tion in stating the account under
22 of the Cost Act provides that if a the established rules of law appli- judgment is reversed on appeal or cable in such cases.
error the complainant or plaintiff in The court erred in dismissing the
error shall recover costs, and it is bill for want of equity. The appel- only where a judgment or decree late court did not err in reversing shall be reversed in part and afthe decree and remanding the cause firmed in part that costs may be apfor the taking of the account.
portioned between the parties under The right to an accounting having § 24. There is no cause for com
(282 ni. 593, 118 N. E. 1004.) plaint that only half of the costs equity must come with clean hands is were taxed to the defendant, and, held in the reported case (BARNES V. the suit being to recover from the BARNES, ante, 4) to be limited in estate, it was proper to order the its application to cases where the incosts paid in due course of adminis- equitable conduct of the complainant tration.
goes to the substance of the cause of The judgment of the Appellate action which he seeks to enforce. It Court is affirmed.
is, therefore, held that the fabrication Petition for rehearing denied,
of evidence in support of some items April 3, 1918.
of a claim will not justify a denial of relief as to other items.
The scope and application of the maxim thus conNOTE,
strued are fully discussed in the note
following LANGLEY V. DEVLIN, post, The maxim that he who comes into 44.
Cloud on title bill to quiet clean hands.
1. One securing a deed to real estate through fraud is not prevented from quieting his title against a subsequent grantee from the common grantor, by the maxim that "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands."
[See note on this question beginning on page 44.] Assignment - action for fraud. to a bona fide purchaser for value be
2. A right of action for fraud is per- fore institution of proceedings to set sonal and not assignable.
it aside. (See 2 R. C. L. 610, 611.)
Deed quitclaim effect. Fraud deed secured by · right to
6. A quitclaim deed by one from set aside.
whom a warranty deed to the property 3. A subsequent grantee with no- had been secured by another, through tice cannot set aside a prior deed al- fraud, is without effect. leged to have been secured from the [See 8 R. C. L. 1024-1026.] common grantor, by fraud, when he
- right of action. was intoxicated.
7. The personal right of one from Incompetent person deed valid
whom a deed has been secured by ity. 4. A deed of an insane person, who
fraud, to sue for the cancelation of the has not previously been adjudged to
deed, cannot be assigned by quitclaim
deed. be such and placed under guardianship, is merely voidable and can sub- Equity – full relief — who given. sequently be ratified by the grantor 8. The power of equity to grant when mentally normal.
complete relief when jurisdiction is [See 8 R. C. L. 947.]
once taken cannot be extended to per- effect of conveyance.
sons not parties to the suit and whose 5. A conveyance by a person when rights a party to the suit cannot take intoxicated carries the fee, which may by assignment. pass beyond attack, by reconveyance [See 10 R. C. L. 556.]
APPEAL by complainant from a decree of the Circuit Court for Baraga County (O'Brien, J.) in Chancery, dismissing a complaint filed to quiet title to certain land. Reversed.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Messrs. Joseph J. O'Connor and A. dated February 16, 1904, which W. MacLeod for appellant.
deed, however, was not recorded unMr. A. F. Dixon for appellee.
til January 24, 1908, and that she Steere, J., delivered the opinion of subsequently, on August 1, 1907,
, the court:
quitclaimed the same land to defendComplainant filed this bill to re- ant, who recorded his deed August move a cloud from its title to 1605, 1907. acres of land in Baraga county, al- Complainant's deed was procured leged to be caused by a subsequent from Mrs. Abts by its representaquitclaim deed from its grantor to tive, named Paquette, who paid her defendant Fisher, but recorded prior $100 therefor. He first interviewed to its own deed.
her upon the subject at a hotel where Defendant, answering, traversed she was working in Nestoria, and and denied the various allegations upon the following day went with of complainant's bill, and alleged by her to, or met her at, Sidnau, in an way of cross bill that the deed to adjoining county, where she went said land under which complainant to the office of a notary public, and claims title was procured for an in
there executed and acknowledged adequate consideration, through her deed to complainant in the false and fraudulent representa- presence of two subscribing wittions, from Eliza Abts, their com- nesses. mon grantor, while she was intoxi- The issues of fact to which the cated, beyond control of her mental testimony taken in the case related faculties, her understanding being were the value of the land, Paclouded and reason dethroned, for quette's representations as to the which reasons said deed upon which
amount of delinquent taxes upon complainant bases its claim of title said land, and other inducements to is void, a cloud upon defendant's secure Mrs. Abts's consent to sell, title, and a fraud upon his rights; he and the extent, if any, she was under therefore prays that said warranty the influence of liquor during the deed from said Eliza Abts to com- negotiations and
negotiations and at the time she exeplainant, as described in its bill, be
cuted the deed. The testimony of set aside, offering to pay all moneys
the respective sides upon these isexpended by complainant in and sues was in sharp conflict, and, upon about said premises; also praying the printed record, could scarcely be that complainant be required to
said to settle them either way bemake answer to all matters charged yond possible misgiving, although by defendant in that particular. with the witnesses before the court
Complainant duly answered de- the case may have assumed a diffendant's answer “taken as a cross ferent aspect. bill," denying its allegations and, But the preliminary and more amongst other things, saving and serious question raised and urged in reserving all benefit of exception behalf of complainant is whether de"which can be taken to the many fendant can avail himself of an alerrors and uncertainties and other leged fraud practised by complainimperfections in said answer taken ant's agent upon Mrs. Abts. He as a cross bill contained.”
makes no claim of any fraud pracIt was shown upon the hearing tised upon himself, or that he was without dispute that Eliza Abts, who an innocent purchaser. He testithen had a good title in fee, subject fied that Mrs. Abts was a distant to delinquent taxes for some years, relative of his wife, and had, while to the land in question, conveyed it living with them, told him “how this to complainant by warranty deed land was taken from her.” That
(190 Mich. 478, 157 N. W. 282.) he was a traveling man and consult- "It is very well settled that an ed with several lawyers about it; action for fraud is not assignable, that Mrs. Abts gave him a deed so and that fraud is only to be comhe could litigate the matter, and in plained of by the party injured.” consideration of the deed he agreed Lewis v. Rice, 61 Mich. 97, 27 N. to give her a home and provide for W. 867. her. He is here complaining of a "It is also the settled rule in this fraud practised upon Mrs. Abts at state that actions for fraud and dea time when he had no interest in ceit are not assignable.” Stebbins this land, and of which he says he v. Dean, 82 Mich. 385, 46 N. W.778. was fully advised before he received "If Boughton committed a fraud his quitclaim deed to it.
in selling the lands to Wilson, LuThe general rule is well estab- ther, & Wilson, an action for that lished, and has been often recog- fraud is not assignable.
It nized by this court Assignment
is therefore unnecessary to state or action for
discuss what then took place befraud. guage, that a right tween them."
tween them." Chase v. Boughton, of action for fraud is personal and 93 Mich. 285, 54 N. W. 44. not assignable, in part, as follows: “It is well settled that the right
"As assignee of the contract, to complain of a fraud is not assignCalkins cannot insist upon the able.” Smith v. Thompson, 94 fraud.” Carroll v. Potter, Walk. Mich. 381, 54 N. W. 168. Ch. (Mich.) 355.
"If the defendants fraudulently "A court of equity will not counte- misrepresented the facts to Tillotnance the assignment of a cause of son, he (Tillotson) might have proaction for a tort, or to set aside ceeded against them for their fraud; a conveyance, or other act, as fraud
but his right of action is not assignulent.” Morris v. Morris, 5 Mich. able, and did not pass to complain171.
ant by virtue of the deed from Til"The right to sue in equity to
lotson to him." Fuller v. Bilz, 161 have a conveyance set aside for
Mich. 589, 126 N. W. 712. fraud is not assignable” (from syl- On defendant's theory of the labus). Brush v. Sweet, 38 Mich. facts, Mrs. Abts's deed to complain574.
ant was but voidable, not void, and “The present complainant-ac- voidable only at the cording to his own proofs—has
Fraud-deed instance of the
secured bymerely purchased claims for the party defrauded or purpose of this litigation, or of some under some disabillitigation. He was never defraud- ity at the time of its execution, as in ed.
. A right to complain of case of a minor or person otherwise fraud is not assignable, and the temporarily incompetent. This claims in controversy have nothing deed was witnessed, acknowledged, involved which could keep them and on its face executed in complialive at all unless fraud would do so. ance with all requirements of law. Being nothing more than an assign- It was prima facie valid. Whether ment of” a cause of "action for it appear that she executed the in
a fraud it is well settled that it will strument, fully understanding the not be enforced." Dickinson v. nature of her act, but induced to do Seaver, 44 Mich. 624, 7 N. W. 182. so by the fraudulent misrepresenta
"It has been held repeatedly in tion of Paquette, or that by reason this state that equity will not en- of intoxication her mental faculties force the demands of an assignee of were so clouded that she did not a right to sue for fraud, when the fully realize the nature of her act, cause of action is confined to that." and was in effect insane, one or Dayton v. Fargo, 45 Mich. 153, 7 N. both, the deed was but voidable. It W. 758.
is undisputed that when sober she
right to set