Dyer v. Day

Citations

• 61 Ill. 336

Syllabus

<p>1. Ejectment—;fraud as a defense. A and his wife conveyed to B a tract of land, which the latter afterwards conveyed to O. A still remaining in possession of the land, 0 brought an action of ejectment against him. The defendant offered to show, in defense, that the deed from him and his wife to B was made in consideration of a conveyance to him by B of a tract of laud in Missouri, and that B had made fraudulent representations as to the character and value of such land, to which the plaintiff was a party: Held, that, while if the fraud, as claimed, had been practiced, it would afford good ground for asking a court of equity to rescind the contract and direct mutual reconvejrances, yet it could not be received as a defense to the action, as in ejectment the legal title must prevail, and the deeds showed a legal title in the plaintiff, and the alleged fraud went to the consideration, merely, and not to the execution of the deed.</p> <p>2. Nor could it avail the defendant that he had induced his wife to sign the deed, relinquishing her homestead right in the land, by leading her to suppose the instrument was a mortgage to secure the payment of $200, even if the grantee in the deed and the plaintiff were both cognizant of such fraudulent representation; for the action was brought against the husband alone, and he could not be permitted to set up his own fraudulent statements to his wife to defeat a recovery.</p> <p>3. The remedy of the wife could only be sought, in a proceeding to which she, herself, is a party, and in which the relief could be adjusted on equitable grounds. And should the property be worth more than $1000— as her claim could amount only to that sum in any event—the respective rights of the parties could be settled only in chancery.</p>