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

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

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

Stoffela v. Nugent

No. 179

Argued April 28, 1910

Decided May 16, 1910

217 U.S. 499

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 Although one by reason of fraud may have no standing to rescind his transaction, if it is rescinded by one having the right to do so, the court should do such justice as is consistent with adherence to law.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.

Page 217 U. S. 500

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.