Majority
p. 386*John Comstock and others, appellants, against Charles W. Apthorpe and others, respondents.[1]
Headnote
ít is a proper head of equitable jurisdiction, to relieve against fraudulent deeds.An answer denying all knowledge and belief of the alleged fraud, is not sufficient whereon to dissolve an injunction against ejectments prosecuted on such deed.
An injunction is, in such case, properly auxiliary to the relief sought; as the court of chancery takes the whole controversy into its own hands, to prevent double litigation, and give more effectual relief than can be done at law.
?t is the practice of the court of chancery to order deeds and other papers contested as false and fraudulent, to be brought into court for inspection.
On appeal from the court of chancery. For the report of the case in the court below, see 1 Hopk. Oh. Eep. MS to M9.
Sanford. Chancellor, assigned his reasons for the decision in chancery, as in 1 Hopk. Oh. Eep. 147 to 149;
The cause was argued here by
21 J. Oalchy, for the appellants, and
8. M. Hopkins, for the respondents.
delivered opinions, the result of which was, that the injunction should have been dissolved by the court of chancery, in which Sutherland, J., concurred.
delivered an opinion, in which he supported the chancellor’s decision throughout.
On the question being put, the vote stood as follows:
For affirmance, Burt, Burrows, Golden, Cramer, Dudley, Earll, Ellsworth, Gardiner, Greenly, Keyes, Lefferts, Lynde, Mallory, M’Miehael and Wright, Senators.
For afflrn>i anee 16.
For reversal, in respect to the refusal to dissolve the in junction by the court of chancery, Bowman, Bray ton, Haight, McIntyre, Morgan, Bedfield, Wilkeson, Wooster, Senators,- and Savage, .Oh. J., and Sutherland, and Wood-worth, Justices. -
reversal.