Vigel v. Hopp

Supreme Court

Vigel v. Hopp

104 U.S. 441, 26 L. Ed. 765, 14 Otto 441, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2021

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 12, 1881

Docket147

StatusPublished

Cited by29 cases

This text of 104 U.S. 441 (Vigel v. Hopp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vigel v. Hopp, 104 U.S. 441, 26 L. Ed. 765, 14 Otto 441, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2021 (1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

• This is a suit in equity begun by the appellee to set aside a deed executed by her to the appellant, on the ground that the deed, though absolute on its face, was intended only as security for a. debt, which has since been paid in full. There are numerous allegations of fraud, but the" whole scope and pur *442 pose of the suit is to-, establish a trust, and get back the property in that way. The answer denies every allegation- of fraud and trust, and insists that the deed was intended-as an absolute conveyance, and not as security. ,-This is responsive. to the bill, and before the relief can be granted which is asked, these denials must be overcome by the-satisfactory testimony of two ■witnesses,, or of one witness corroborated by circumstances which are equivalent in weight to another. 2 Story, Eq., sect. 1528. - The appellee is the only witness in support of .the bill, and the corroborating circumstances are not, in our opinion, sufficient to overcome the answer. It will serve no useful purpose to enter into analysis of the testimony.

Decree reversed, and cause remanded with instructions to dismiss the bill.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

• This is a suit in equity begun by the appellee to set aside a deed executed by her to the appellant, on the ground that the deed, though absolute on its face, was intended only as security for a. debt, which has since been paid in full. There are numerous allegations of fraud, but the" whole scope and pur *442 pose of the suit is to-, establish a trust, and get back the property in that way. The answer denies every allegation- of fraud and trust, and insists that the deed was intended-as an absolute conveyance, and not as security. ,-This is responsive. to the bill, and before the relief can be granted which is asked, these denials must be overcome by the-satisfactory testimony of two ■witnesses,, or of one witness corroborated by circumstances which are equivalent in weight to another. 2 Story, Eq., sect. 1528. - The appellee is the only witness in support of .the bill, and the corroborating circumstances are not, in our opinion, sufficient to overcome the answer. It will serve no useful purpose to enter into analysis of the testimony.

Decree reversed, and cause remanded with instructions to dismiss the bill.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 U.S. 441, 26 L. Ed. 765, 14 Otto 441, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vigel-v-hopp-scotus-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack