Legal Opinion
The Thomas P. Beal.
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided April 15, 1924No. 7512PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NETERER, District Judge.
It is primer law that a court of admiralty is without equitable jurisdiction to set aside a contract, either on the ground of mistake of law or of fact, or on the ground that it was obtained by fraud.1
It is also the rule in this circuit that a party seeking to be relieved from the effect of a release obtained by fraudulent representation must first offer to return the money received as the consideration for the release. Hill et al. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 113 Fed. 915, 51 C. C. A. 544; Mahr v. U. P. Ry. Co., 170 Fed. 699, 96 C. C. A. 19. It is, I think, by creditable…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- The Steamer EclipseSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- City of Chicago v. BabcockIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- United Transportation & Lighterage Co. v. New York & Baltimore Transp. LineCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1911
- Robertson v. TrammellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1904
- Betcher v. McChesneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Fred I. Putnam and James A. Overman v. Harry C. Lower, John Kadlec, George S. Herning, Edgar L. Peecher, William E. Barquist and Norman L. BunkerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
- Black v. MartinMontana Supreme Court · 1930
- Pacific States Lumber Co. v. BargarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1926
- Conqueror Trust Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of MarylandCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933
- Jenkins v. Southern Pac. Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1937
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.