Ranney v. Warren

20 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 11
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1878
StatusPublished

This text of 20 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 11 (Ranney v. Warren) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ranney v. Warren, 20 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 11 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1878).

Opinions

Learned, P. J.:

Without discussing the correctness of the learned justice on the mere question of damages it seems to us that he overlooked the fact that a part of the relief demanded, and perhaps the principal part, was the equitable relief of a surrender and cancellation of the bond. If the allegations of the complaint were true the defendant had by fraud procured the plaintiff to execute this bond and the accompanying mortgage.

Now fraud is often a defense at law to an action upon an instrument. Put on the other hand fraud is a ground for affirmative relief in equity; that is, for the relief of decreeing a surrender and cancellation of the instrument, the execution of which was obtained by fraud. And there are some cases where the relief in equity is much more safe and complete. In the present case, for instance, this bond is payable in installments. It will be ten years from the time of the transaction before the last installment becomes payable. The proof of the alleged fraud may by that time be difficult. Questions may arise as to the statute of limitations. For these and for other reasons the present seems to be a case (assuming the complaint to be true) where it would be proper for equity to grant affirmative relief against this bond and mortgage.

[13]*13It is not necessary to refer to authorities to show that where a person has by fraud procured another to execute a bond equity may sustain an action to compel the surrender of the instrument, although no actual money damage has yet been sustained. It cannot affect this general principle that the fraud was committed in the sale of land to the obligor, provided the fraud was in fact practiced ; and provided the circumstances show that the equitable relief is needed to do justice between the parties.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ranney-v-warren-nysupct-1878.