Hauser v. Mann, 5 N.C. 410, 1 Mur. 410 (1810)

July 1810 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

5 N.C. 410, 1 Mur. 410

George Hauser and Andrew Bowman v. Joel Mann and John Black.

[-From Stokes. J

IN EQUITY.

A. and B, citizens of Virginia, sold a stud-horse to C. and D, citizens of this State, and made a false and fraudulent representation of his pedigree. C. and IX being sued on their bond for the purchase money, 'and judgment being recovered, filed their bill charging the fraud, and praying for an injunction. The injunction was granted, and A. and B. demurred to the bill, and for cause shewed, that it appeared from Complainants’ own shewing, they had relief at law. Demurrer overruled upon two grounds.

1. That A. and B. reside in another State, and that C. and D. ought not to be sent beyond the jurisdiction of our own Courts to seek relief.

2. That it bring a ease of fraud, a Court of Equity will take cognizance of it, and at once save Complainants from an iniquitous recovery at law.

The bill charged, that in February 1805, Joel Mann, ©f the State of Virginia, came into State,. having in his possession a stud-horse, which, he said belonged to John Black, of Virginia, and that Black bad authorised him to sell the horse. H ■ declared to the Complainants, that this horse v\ as a colt of the imported horse Shark, and that his dam was begotten by a noted horse called Bell-Mr. Under these representations, the Complainants’ purchased the horse at the price of five hundred anil twenty-five dollars, of which they paid down one hundred and twenty-five dollars, and gave their bond for the balance, which bond Mann immediately, and before it became due, assigned to Black without responsibility. ■

The bill then charged, that after the purchase of the horse, the Complainants discovered that the representations made to them by Mann, of the pedigree of the horse, were false ; that he was a horse of ordinary blood, and not worth more than two hundred dollars j. that Mann, was the son-in-law of Black, and they had combined together to cheat some innocent purchaser in tiie sale, of the horse ; that Black had instituted suit against them on their bond, and recovered a judgment; that he and Mann both resided in another State, and had no property here, to which Complainants could resort for compensation for the fraud practised on them. The bill prayed, for an injunction against the judgment, exceptas to seventy-five dollars, which, with the one hundred and twenty-five dollars before paid, Complainants alleged to be the full value of the horse.

An injunction was awarded according to the prayer of the bill, and at the next term of the Court, the Defendants demurred, and for cause shewed, that it appeared by Complainants’ own shewing, that they had relief at law. The Complainants having joined in demurrer, the case was sent to this Court.

LowRie, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The demurrer admits the allegations of the bill to be true. If the Defendants have been guilty of the fraud charged in the bill, the Complainants are entitled not only to the relief which they ask, but to have the contract set aside. It is said Complainants have, relief at law. It is true they have; but where must they go to seek it ? Will this Court refuse them relief, because they may go into another State and recover damages in an action at law ? Mann came into this State to commit the fraud; Black was his confederate. Here the fraud was committed, and here it ought to be redressed. This Court is of opinion, that the demurrer ought to be overruled, upon either of two grounds. 1st. That the Defendants reside in another State, and that Complainants ought not to he sent beyond the jurisdiction of our own Courts to seek redress. 2d. That this being a case of fraud, a Court of Equity will take cognizance of it, and at once save the Complainants from an iniquitous recovery at law. — Let the demurrer be overruled.