Stoffela v. Nugent, 217 U.S. 499 (1910)
U.S. Supreme CourtStoffela v. Nugent, 217 U.S. 499 (1910)
Stoffela v. Nugent
Argued April 28, 1910
Decided May 16, 1910
217 U.S. 499
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 Although one by reason of fraud may have no standing to rescind his transaction, if it is rescinded by one having the right to do so, the court should do such justice as is consistent with adherence to law.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.