Shinkle v. Letcher

Citations

• 47 Ill. 216

Syllabus

<p>1. Fraudulent title—not cured by decree in confirmation thereof—fraud. Where a vendee of lands, at an execution sale, knowing that the judgment upon which his title rests is satisfied, obtains a decree setting aside conveyances, fraudulent as to judgment creditors, and in confirmation of title in himself, still concealing from adverse claimants his knowledge that the judgment is satisfied, his title is fraudulent, and may be impeached in equity, notwithstanding the former decree in relation to the same title.</p> <p>1. Former adjudication—whennot conclusive. The general rule is, that a former adjudication is conclusive between parties and privies, as to the subject matter involved. But this rule cannot be invoked to aid a party who knew Ms claim was groundless at the time of the former adjudication, in a suit against him by the parties defrauded, where not estopped by their want of diligence.</p> <p>3. Diligence—in relation to papers on the public files. The existence of a receipt or acquittance of a judgment on file with the judgment papers, at the time of a chancery proceeding to enforce a title deduced from such judgment, being known to the party enforcing the title, but unknown to the defendants in such proceeding, will not estop these defendants from setting up the acquittance jn a bill to review or impeach the former decree, upon the ground of a want of diligence in the former suit: Seinble, that the rule would be different where all the parties were equally in ignorance of such a paper.</p>