Lacy v. Administrators of Garrard
Lacy v. Administrators of Garrard
Opinion of the Court
If the facts set out in the bill were admitted to be true, they would not entitle the complainant to the relief he asks for, as he might have taken advantage of them in the action at law. Had this signature been procured in the manner charged, the obligation would have been voidable at least. The facts might have been reduced to the form of a plea, and would have been a good bar to the action on the bond, or, if the payment had been made, as is alleged, they might have been pleaded or proved under a notice to the general issue. No reason is assigned why the complainant could not have taken advantage of them, much less is it pretended that he was prevented from doing so, by the fraud or procurement of the defendant. But independent of these considerations, the material facts are all denied, and the evidence is not sufficient to overthrow thd answer. The testimony is vague
Injunction dissolved, and bill dismissed.
Note by the Editor. — Eor late decisions in reference to remedy in chancery by the maker of a fraudulently procured contract, see xviii. 548, and cases cited. As to avoiding such contracts at law, see xvi. 504. As to defense of drunkenness in criminal cases, see xiv. 565.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Thomas Lacy v. The Administrators of Garrard
- Status
- Published