We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
32
II.
It was entirely proper for the Court below to base its dismissal of complainant's bill on the g^round that complainant's hands were not clean.
To meet technicality with technicahty, appellant's first point is supported by no assignment of error (Record, pp. 797-8), and should therefore be disregarded.
Circuit Court of Appeals Rules, 11, 24. Deering Harvester Co. vs. Kelley, 103 Federal, '261.
Smith vs. Hopkins, 120 Federal, 921. Louisiana A. & M. B. Co. v. Board of Levee CommYs, &c., 87 Fed., 594, at 606.
Apart from technicality the point is insupportable by any reasoning.
Appellant asks a reversal on the ground that the Court below adopted a defense not pleaded in the answer. The defense alleged in the answer was fraudulent misrepresentation, and this was set out in detail and with certainty (Ans. par. fourteenth, pp, 41-43). The defense "adopted by the Court below " was in effect that since the evidence established that complainant made certain important promises as consideration for receiving a valuable license, intending ivhile so promising not to fulfill those promises, it was not thereafter entitled in equity to demand specific performance, since through these fraudulent misrepresentations its hands were soiled.
It seems mere quibbling for complainant to argue that though a defense of fraudulent misrepresentation on its part is set up and proved a court of equity cannot then dismiss complainant as coming into court with unclean hands. Complainant apparently does not appreciate the breadth and all-pervasiveness of the equitable maxims.