Stoffela v. Nugent, 217 U.S. 499 (1910)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 217 U.S. 497, click here.

Stoffela v. Nugent


No. 179


Argued April 28, 1910
Decided May 16, 1910
217 U.S. 499

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA

Syllabus

One committing a fraud does not become an outlaw and caput lupinum. Although one by reason of fraud may have no standing to rescind his transaction, if it is rescinded by one having the right to do so, the court should do such justice as is consistent with adherence to law. Although one holding a mortgage may have fraudulently endeavored to prevent another from acquiring the fee of the property, he may still be entitled to have his mortgage paid if the other finally gets the property.

Deeds and discharges of mortgages, although different instruments, may be parts of one transaction, and one setting aside the deed may also be required to give up the discharge so as to restore other parties to the condition in which they stood prior to the transaction.

18 Ariz. 151, reversed

The facts are stated in the opinion.