Herrick v. Lynch
Herrick v. Lynch
Opinion of the Court
Counsel on both sides have filed in this court the same briefs prepared by them for and used in the Appellate Court, and no proposition is raised here which was not presented to and passed upon by that court. All the controverted questions raised are essentially questions of fact, and as to most of them the evidence is to a great extent conflicting. We have examined the record with care, and are of the opinion that the evidence sustains the decree. The opinion of the Appellate Court, as it seems to us, fairly and properly disposes of the points made by counsel, and any further discussion of them by us would therefore be superfluous. We are disposed to adopt the opinion of that court, and for the reasons there stated, the judgment affirming the decree will’ be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- George J. Herrick v. Thomas Lynch
- Cited By
- 18 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Attobney — taking deed to aid grantor in defrauding creditors. Where a person conveys all his real estate to his legal adviser, for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of his creditors as well as to secure a debt due the grantee, and is induced to do so by the advice and artifice of the grantee, a court of equity will treat'' the deed as a mortgage, and allow a redemption, notwithstanding the fraud attending the transaction, the parties not being in pari delicto. 2. Equity will not tolerate the idea that an attorney may make use of his peculiar power over his client to procure a contract which is illegal and contrary to public policy, and to then invoke the aid of the law to enable him to retain that which he has obtained through his fraudulent artifices. 3. Ghanceby — jurisdiction—waiver of right to question. Where a court of equity obtains jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, it will not pass upon the accounts of the parties by piecemeal- and when the defendant takes issue in respect of claims of indebtedness against him, and answers on the merits, he will waive all right he may have had to question the jurisdiction of the court.