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.
36
pleadings did not even set up any facts from which the pubhc fraud or illegality might be spelled out.
The principle we aie citing was directly applied in the case of Sullivan vs. Portland, &c.. Railroad Co., 93 U. S., 806, where the Court of its own motion barred a complainant in recognition of the maxim " Vigilantibus non dormientihus cequitas subvenit,^' saying, at page 811, per Swayne, J.:
"To let in the defense that the claim is stale, and that the bill cannot tlierefore be supported, it is not necessary that a foundation should be laid by any averment in the answer of the defendants. If the case as it appears at the bearing is liable to the objection by reason of the laches of the complainants, the Court will upon that ground be passive and refuse relief."
If this be so in case of laches surely under the more fundamental principle of equity that " He who comes into a court of equity must come with clean hands," and upon the facts in the case at bar, whether or not the answer recites the maxim, the Court will be passive and refuse relief.
III.
The representations made by Mr. Lodg-e on behalf of the Melies Company to Mr. Dyer on and prior to September 18th, 1908, coupled with the subsequent sale to Mr. Lewis of the stock of said company, and the execution of the voting trust ag-reements, constituted such fraud, as entitled the defendants to rescind the transfer of the licenses, ail essentials of fraud and deceit being present.
The essentials of an action for fraud and deceit, or of a defense founded thereon, are the representation, the