Unknown County MI Archives Court.....Ankrim, V. Woodworth 1837
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/mi/mifiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 August 9, 2008, 8:28 am

Source: Cases In Chancery
Written: 1837

CASES IN CHANCERY
FIRST CIRCUIT.

Joel L. Ankrim v. Samuel D. Woodworth.

Fraud: Remedy at law. Where the transactions stated in the hill, by which 
certain notes were obtained, presented a case of fraud, although, from the 
case made, it was doubtful whether the complainant could defend successfully 
the full amount of the notes, and a general demurrer was interposed, the court 
refused to sustain the demurrer, and required the defendant to answer.

In cases of fraud where it is doubtful whether the defense would be good at 
law, the court of chancery will entertain jurisdiction. (a.)

Bill to annul and set aside a contract, and to compel certain notes to be 
delivered up and canceled. States that in February, 1839, complainant entered 
into an agreement with defendant to purchase certain lands which defendant 
represented as belonging to him, as being good land situated near a mill, with 
some thirty acres cleared or improved land. That in the spring of 1840 
complainant executed to defendant three several promissory notes for fifty 
dollars each, payable in six, twelve and eighteen months, in consideration 
that defendant would cancel and destroy the agreement to purchase; that soon 
after he had executed the notes he ascertained for the first time that 
defendant had no title to a part of the lands contracted to be conveyed, that 
there was no clearing or improvement as represented, and that the lands were 
entirely different from what they were represented to be, and he charges that 
he was induced to enter into the contract by fraud. The bill further avers 
that there was no other consideration for the notes except as above stated, 
and prays that they may be decreed to be delivered up for cancelment.

To this bill the defendant demurred.

A. Davidson, in support of the demurrer. 

J. S. Abbott, contra.

The Chancellor.—The principal ground relied upon in support of the demurrer is 
that the facts stated in the bill would constitute a good defense at law.

The transactions stated in the bill, by which the notes were obtained, present 
a case of fraud, and for the purpose of this argument are admitted by the 
demurrer. It may, perhaps, be doubtful whether the complainant could defend 
successfully for the full amount of the notes.

In the case of Hamilton v. Cummings, 1 Johns. Ch., 523, the rule is stated to 
be, that in cases of fraud, where it is doubtful whether the defense would be 
good at law, the court of chancery will retain jurisdiction. And a still 
stronger case is cited from Peere Williams, where the lord chancellor canceled 
a bond without sending the parties to law, although he was inclined to think 
the bond void at law as well as in equity.

There is another reason for retaining jurisdiction in this case, as the 
complainant is likely to be harassed with a series of suits upon these notes, 
confessedly fraudulent under the case made by the bill, and this, too, 
perhaps, after the witnesses may be beyond his reach.

Demurrer overruled, with leave to answer.

---------------------
(a.) See Barrows v. Doty, ante, 1, and cases cited in notes. 

Additional Comments:
CASES DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
BY ELON FARNSWORTH, Chancellor 

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/mi/unknown/court/ankrim70gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/mifiles/

File size: 3.8 Kb