Wood v. Garland
This text of 58 N.H. 154 (Wood v. Garland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The general rule is, that the party who would recover back, on the ground of fraud, what he has parted with, must, before he brings his suit, return, or offer to return, what he has received; but this is not the rule where the vendor has received nothing in payment but the notes of the vendee. It is sufficient, in such cases, if the notes are produced on the trial ready then to be cancelled. When the sale is procured by fraud, no title passes; hence, rescinding the sale rescinds the contract of purchase, and the notes, never having been negotiated, fall with the contract. The production and cancelling the notes on the trial were therefore in season, as, by so doing, the plaintiffs placed it out of their power to make them available against the defendant. Bassett v. Brown, 105 Mass. 551; Thurston v. Blanchard, 22 Pick. 18; Nichols v. Michael, 23 N. Y. 264; Armstrong v. Tuffts, 6 Barb. 432.
Judgment on the verdict.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
58 N.H. 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-garland-nh-1877.