11Vin. 542. (A. a) Discountenanced and set aside; in what Cafes. And per Ld. I. Hardwicke ; There are feveral in PER ER Ld. Ch. King. A decree, much more an interlocutory order, if gained by collufion, may be fet afide on petition, a fortiori by bill, 3 Wms. 111. Eaft. 1731. Sheldon v. Mr. ftances of Justice Fortefcue Aland & al. relief, not withstanding a former decree, if obtained by fraud and impofition, which infects judgments at law, and decrees of all courts, and annuls the whole in the confideration of equity. ■ Veí. 201. 1748. Barnefly Powel. But a decree, though obtained by fraud, cannot be fet afide upon petition. 3 Bro. 74. April 1790, Muffell v. Morgan. 2. William Hall, an extravagant young man, prevailed upon Lowfield, the defendant, to raife him money on promiffory notes indorfed by Lowfield, who alfo got notes and bonds from Hall for a very large fum. Hall was afterwards fued by his creditors, difcharged by an infolvent act, and his effects affigned over. Lowfield, who had been three times a bankrupt, and the last time without any dividend made of his effects, and not two years before his dealing with Hall, being a principal creditor, brings a bill against Hall, the affignees and perfons in whofe hands the cftate was; and a general account was decreed to be taken of what was due. The creditors of Hall procured him to make affidavit that Lowfield had obtained an acknowledgment and admiffion of his debts from him, without confideration, and application was made to the court, that Lowfield might not be allowed to produce a paper to that purpose, as being under the hand of debtor to creditor, the mafter could not fet it afide; but Lowfield confented to lay it out of the cafe. The mafter being directed to take an account pursuant to the former decree, and to enquire what was really due, Lowfield produced two other papers of the fame import, though not of the fame date with that given up. The mafter allowed them: and on his report it came before the court; which, to give further light to the bufinefs, gave liberty to Hall's reprefentative to bring the prefent bill to be relieved against Lowfield's demand, and to enquire into the legality of thefe papers. In cafe of proof of pofitive fraud, the court will not direct an allowance of any fum not actually proved to have been paid; and in this cafe gave liberty to the plaintiff to falfify these two papers, and if he could fhew fome of the notes, &c. to have been for the debts of defendant, or for intereft wrong computed, he fhould have allowance, which would prevent the conclufiveness of the notes, &c. 1 Vef. 35. July 1747, Townsend v. Lowfield. 3. Fraud in obtaining a probate relieved against in equity, and a deed importing a confent thereto, by means of which the probate was granted fet afide; and defendant decreed to confent to a revocation of the probate. 1 Vef. 284. 1749, Barnefly v. Powel. 4. In cafes of fraud the remedy never dies with the perfon, but but will follow the estate of the party liable to the demand. 1 Vef. 557. Garth v. Sir John Hind Cotton. 5. A., tenant for life, with remainder to B. in tail, by fraud gets B.'s authority to levy a fine; he fells the lands, and invefts the money in the funds, where it is clearly identified: B. has no lien on this money against the other creditors of A., though the court confidered him as a trustee to the amount. 2 Anstr. 343. Mich. 34 Geo. 3. Newcomb v. Burdon. (C. a) By Circumvention. APHET Crook, in 1728 being under profecutions for perjury and forgery, employed the defendant as his attorney to get bail, which he did accordingly, and during this tranfaction drew Crook's will, who directed a legacy of 1000l. to defendant, and 500l. a-piece to the bail, and afterwards the defendant got a bond for the fecurity of his legacy: Crook afterwards revokes the will, and by another appoints the plaintiff executrix, and makes her refiduary legatee; after the death of teftator, defendant brings an action on his bond, and has a verdict and judgment. A bill to be relieved against it for frand. Lord Hardwicke decreed for the defendant, by reafon of Crook's having lived fix years after having executed the bond, without having filed any bill for relief, which was confidered a strong circumftance in defendant's favour. 2 Atk. 25. June 1739, Walmefiey v. Booth. 2. Where money is lent to two perfons, and either through fraud, or for want of fkill, the bond is made a joint only, inftead of a joint and feveral bond, these are heads of equity and relievable. 2 Atk. 34. February 1739, Simpson v. Vaughan. 3. John Walker, the eldest brother of the family, applied to Thomas Walker the plaintiff, and to his fifter, who had folicited him to do something for them, and told them, if you will furrender your copyhold eftate, as you have no children of the marriage, for the benefit of your brother Ralph Walker, (the defendant,) I will fecure an annuity of 51. for your life, and an annuity of 21. 10s. for your fifter: the plaintiff agreed to the terms, and promised to furrender his copyhold eftate; upon which John Walker furrendered his copyhold eftate, charged with these annuities. Defendant refufed to pay them, unlefs the plaintiff would furrender his own copyhold eftates, according to his promife. And the plaintiff's bill for the annuities was difmiffed. 2 Atk. 98. December 1740, Walker v. Walker. 4. If a perfon will enter into a hard bargain with his eyes open, equity will not relieve him unless he can fhew fraud in the perfon contracting with him, or fome undue means used to take him in. 2 Atk. 251. February 1741, Willis v. Jernegan. 5. A folicitor making an abfolute conveyance to himself of 1000/. from the plaintiff's wife, whilft fhe was parted from her hufband; the confideration expreffed in the deed being for fervices done, and favours fhewn; the bill is brought to set aside the deed deed as obtained by fraud. Lord Hardwicke decreed the deed to ftand as a fecurity only for fuch fum as was justly due to the defendant. 2 Atk. 296. May 1742, Sir William Saunderson ▾ Glafs. 6. Bill by plaintiff as heir at law to Sir John Lee, to set afide a conveyance of his eftate to the defendant, upon a fuggeftion of fraud and impofition, and undue influence, which being proved, the court decreed the conveyance to be delivered up, and poffefsion of the estate also. 2 Atk. 324. June 1742, Bennet v. Vade and others. 7. A mortgagee, where the intereft on the mortgage was only four and a half per cent., compelled the mortgagor to turn the interest into principal, at five per cent., at the end of every fix months, and at the time the mortgage was paid off, infifted on an advance of fix months intereft, over and above the interest which was due. The bill was brought for relief against the mortgagee, and to fet afide the grant to the defendant of the place of steward to a manor of the plaintiff's, as obtained by fraud. And the court relieved the plaintiff both as to the mortgage and alfo as to the stewardship. 2 Atk. 400. July 1742, Thornhill v. Evans. 8. One pretended to convey an estate to a woman as premium pudicitia, but in fact he had no fuch eftate. On bill brought, Lord Chief Baron Pengelly ordered fo much to be conveyed of the best part of his eftate. Amb. 520. Mich. 1739. Cary v. Stafford. 9. A deed entered into by parties apprifed of their rights, in order to put an end to a fuit, although upon inadequate confideration, not set aside. 1 Bro. 22. Stephens v. Lord Viscount Bateman, 1778. to. Bill filed to redeem a grant of an annuity, fuggefting that it was part of the agreement, that it should be redeemable, but that no fuch clause was inferted in the deed, on the mistaken idea, that if it were inferted, the transaction would be ufurious: parol evidence offered to this, but not admitted to contradict the deed, as the bill did not charge that the claufe was omitted by fraud. 1 Bro. 92. 1781. Lord Irnam v. Child. 11. Taking an annuity worth nine years purchase, for five years purchase only, is an unconscientious bargain, and a court of equity will give the taker no affiftance in a bargain for a re-purchase. 1 Bro. 556. Oct. 1783. Vaughan v. Thomas. 12. An annuity purchased for four years purchafe on a life of 30 (fubject flightly to the gout, fet afide for inadequacy of price. 2 Bro. 167. 1787. Heathcote v. Paignon. 13. A trustee for the fale of eftates, for payment of debts, who purchased them himself, by taking undue advantage of the confidence reposed in him by the plaintiff, and previous to the completion of the contract, fold them at a highly advanced price: decreed to be a trustee, as to the fums produced by fuch fecond fale, for the original vendor. 2 Bro. 400. 1788. Fox v. Mackreth. 15 14. The 1 14. The tenant having by misrepresentation and collufion with the plaintiff's fteward, obtained a renewal of the leafe for lives, as if one only had dropped, and two were to be exchanged, when in fact two lives had fallen, was decreed to pay the value of the two lives, and was not fuffered to have the option of delivering up the new, and abiding by his former leafe. 3 Bro. 112. 1790. Earl of Abingdon v. Butler and others. 1 Vef. J. 235. S. C. 15. Defendant, agent to the plaintiff, was employed to fell a reverfionary legacy given to the plaintiff by the will of the late Lord Lichfield, the defendant bought it for himself in the name of another, and afterwards fold it to the legatee for a bond payable after the death of his father, and then obtains a money bond: the whole tranfaction was held fraudulent, and he giving the money bond and payment of intereft no confirmation. 3 Bro. 117. 1790. Crowe v. Ballard. 16. If a fervant will, by collufion, take greater profits than belong to his office, it is a fraud, upon which an account may be des manded. Vef. J. 289. 1791. Eaft India Company v. Hench man. 17. Where a factor buys goods which he ought to furnish as factor, and instead of charging factorage duty, or accepting a ftipulated falary, he takes the profits, and deals with his conftituents as a merchant, that is a fraud, upon which an account is due. 1 Vef. 7. 289. S. C. 18. An agent employed to fell eftates, took them to himself under colour of a fictitious purchafe, and fold part: after his death, an inquiry was directed to afcertain the real value, according to which his eftate was to be charged. The principal having an option to take what remained unfold, and the agent having fraudu lently prevailed on his principal to execute a leafe at a rent under the real value, the agent's eftate was charged with the lofs, though it was contended that it was a new equity to afk damages against the estate in respect of a lofs arifing from a tort, which died with the perfon, the Chancellor obferving, that it was a fraud, and the ground of jurifdiction in equity is, that it is a debt. 4 Ves. J. 418. 1799. Lord Hardwicke v. Vernon, (D. a) By Circumvention, in respect to young 13 Vin. 546. 1. THE Duke of Cleveland being about to fend his eldeft fon de alfo the the Lord Southampton, then about 17 years of cafe of Cole age, to v. Gibbons, France, intrusted him to the care of Ofmond, as by the answer he 3 P. Wms. admitted, to prevent his being impofed upon the heir comes of age, 290. where and Ofmond obtains from him a bond for the payment of 100/., unreafona which bond was prepared by Ofmond, and kept fecret from the made with Duke and Duchefs. The bond was decreed to be releafed. heirs in the 3 P. Wms. 131. Mich. 1731. Ofmend v. Fitzroy and Duke of Cleve- lifetime of land, c. contra. bargains their fathers. are relieved against ; and why. 2. A school 2. A school boy contracted a debt of 59 1. for Burgundy, Cham paign, claret, &c. with Gally, a victualler, in the space of five months in a few days after he came of age, Gally prevailed upon him to give a note for the 597. without producing any account, or delivering him a bill. The note was decreed to be delivered up to be cancelled. 3 P. Wms. 34. April 1740. Brooke v. Gally. Barn. Ch. 1 S. C. 3. An heir of about 27 years of age, and who had a commiffion in the guards, borrowed 500l. on condition to pay 1000 l. if he furvived his father and his father-in-law; but if he died before, the lender to lose the 500l. The heir furvived, and was relieved, though after he had paid the money, it being for fear of an execu tion. 3 P. Wms. 93. Note, June 31. Curwyn v. Miller. 4. In this cafe, Lord Hardwicke, Chancellor, laid down the following rules:-That an heir of 22 or 23 years of age, if impofed upon by a dealer in horfes, or other tradefman, by felling at extravagant prices, in many inftances fhall be relieved; otherwife if in a single inftance only: that in relieving him against fraud, the court does not confider whether the eftate in expectancy comes to him as heir to his father, and by defcent, or from any other relation, but from the neceffity which young heirs are ge nerally in, which naturally lays them open to impofitions of this kind. Where an extravagant price is charged for goods fold, and a mortgage is taken to fecure it, the heir may be relieved, fo far as it ftands a fecurity for the unjust gain; but after it is determined upon a quantum meruit, what was the real worth of the goods, the mortgage will ftill be binding upon the heir, for fo much as is found by the verdict. 2 Atk. 39. April 1749. Berkley Freeman v. Bishop. Barn. Ch. 15. S. C. 5. Plaintiff had confiderable gifts or provifions left to him by the will of Philippa Downs, his aunt, and Charles Palmer, his half brother. The defendant, his uncle, was acting executor and trustee in both thefe wills, and alfo acted as guardian to him during his minority, he having neither father nor mother. Coming of age in April 1746, in October 1747, he entered into a tranfaction with his uncle, whereby he granted to his uncle an annuity of 60., gave him a general release and two written difcharges, all figned the fame date with the grant, upon his delivering up feveral papers. Bill to fet afide the annuity, which was decreed accordingly. 2 Vef. 547. July 1754. Hylton v. Hylton. 6. Grant of a reverfionary rent-charge by plaintiff of the age of 23, after the death of his father, who was 81 years of age, and infirm, upon unreafonable terms, fet afide, and per cur. The heir of a family dealing for an expectancy in that family, shall be diftinguished from ordinary cafes, and an unconfcionable bargain made with him fhall not only be looked upon as oppreffive in the particular inftance, and therefore avoided, but as pernicious in principle, and therefore repreffed. 1 Bro. 1. Trin. 1778. Gwynne v. Heaton and others. 7. Bill |