Arnett v. Cloudas
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Detinue, From the Circuit Court for Grant Countv., Fraud will vitiate any contract; but does, not render, any absolutely void:whether a fraudulent contract is void, or binding, depends upon the election of the; party defrauded: he may treat it as a nullity, and reclaim the money or property he has lost by it; or, he may hold the other party bound, and seek redress in dama-!, ges.
Read the full summary
Detinue, From the Circuit Court for Grant Countv., Fraud will vitiate any contract; but does, not render, any absolutely void:whether a fraudulent contract is void, or binding, depends upon the election of the; party defrauded: he may treat it as a nullity, and reclaim the money or property he has lost by it; or, he may hold the other party bound, and seek redress in dama-!, ges. But— If one who hag made a sale, and been defrauded, chooses to disregard the contract, and reclaim the thing sold, he must do so, in a reasonable time, and while the property is so held, that the rights of innocent…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Ewing
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This is an agreed case. From the facts agreed, it seems, that one Laban Hughey, under the assumed name of Hilman, fraudulently purchased from Arnett, the negro girl in contest, by imposing upon him, in payment, counterfeit bank bills upon the Bank of the United States, and procured from him a regular bill of sale and the possession of said slave, and afterwards, sold and delivered her to the defendant Cloudas, as. an innocent purchaser, without notice, and executed his own bill of sale to him, and assigned to him the bill of sale which he held on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mansell's administrator v. IsraelCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1814
3Cited by3 opinions
- People's State Bank v. Jacksonian Hotel Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1935
- Myers v. Sanders' HeirsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1838
- Wood v. YeatmanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1854