be destroyed or concealed by the Executor, he may be cited in the Ecclesiastical Court; but in such Case a Court of Equity has a more effectual Jurisdiction, and a Party may there obtain a Decree upon the head of Spoliation and Suppression, without being put to the difficulty of going to the Ecclesiastical Court (u). Where a Deed or Will is suppressed by the Heir, the Party claiming under such Deed or Will has on evidence of the contents (a) been decreed to hold and enjoy, and the Heir or Suppressor of the Deed or Will, to convey (y). In one case, where no evidence of the contents of the Deed appears to have been adduced, an interested Person, who confessed he had burnt it, was, by an interlocutory Order (≈), committed, until he consented to admit the Deed as stated in the Bill (a). In another case, where a Will was suppressed, and no exact evidence was adduced as to the contents, the Plaintiff, the Devisee, was decreed to hold and enjoy until the Defendant produced the Will, and further order (b). In every Case, however, of this description, proof of the existence of the Deed appears to be fundamental to the Decree (c), and is usually mentioned in Decrees affording relief in such cases. (u) Tucker v. Phipps, 3 Atk. 360. (a) Saltern against Melhuish, Ambl. 249. (y) Dalston v. Coatsworth, 1 P. Wms. 731; and see King and Lord Hunsdon v. Countess Dowager of Arundel, Hob. 109. S. C. mentioned 2 P. Wms. 748, and Woodcroft v. Burton, noticed in the first-mentioned Case. (2) See 1 P. Wms. 732. (a) Sanson v. Rumsey, 2 Vern 561. (b) Hampden v. Hampden, mentioned i P. Wms. 733. S. C. 1 Bro. P. C. 250. (c) Cowper v. Earl Cowper, 2 P. Wms. 748, 749, 750. Such proof appeared in Garteside v. Ratcliffe, Ch. Ca. 292. Hunt v. Matthews, 1 Vern. 408. Wardour v. Beresford, 1 Vern. Where a Devisee obtained a Decree to hold and enjoy against the Heir, who, it was supposed, had suppressed the Will, and pending the Suit a third person got an Assignment of a Mortgage made by the Testator, and then purchased the Equity of Redemption of the Heir, with notice of the Will, the Court would not admit the Purchaser to dispute the justice of the Decree, nor to try at Law whether the Will was cancelled by the Testator (d). The Suppression of Deeds will, it seems, afford a strong ground for the intervention of a Court of Equity to prevent the operation of a Fine, even in a case of a legal Estate, and clearly in the case of a Trust Estate (e). If a Bond be destroyed by the Trustee, the Cestui que Trust may file a Bill of Discovery, and if the destruction of the Bond is admitted, that does away the necessity of Profert at Law, and Liberty will be given to the Plaintiff to bring an Action in the name of the Trustee, and further directions will be reserved till after the Trial (ƒ). If a Person gives a voluntary Bond, and afterwards procures and destroys it, a Bill will lie for a Discovery, and payment of the Money (g). Another species of Fraud is, where one has notice of an unregistered Conveyance in a Register County, in which case, it is considered as a fraud to obtain a re 452, not rightly reported in the particular mentioned in Cowper v. Lord Cowper, 2 P. Wms. 749; and see Eyton v. Eyton, Pr. Ch. 116. (d) Finch v. Newnham Vern. 216. (e) Bowles v. Stewart, 1S & Lefr. 225. (f) Seagrave v. Seagrave, 13 Ves. 439. (g) Atkins v. Farr, 1 Atk. 287. S. C. more full 2 Eq. Abr. 247. gistered Conveyance (h), and insist on the Statute (i); and in such case the Court will relieve (k). The Statute of Anne was only intended to protect Purchasers against secret Conveyances. It does not affect the question of notice. It leaves that as if the Statute had not been made (). Notice to the Agent is, in these cases, considered as notice to the Princicipal (m). The notice may be proved by parol evidence; upon which, however, Lord Alvanley observes, "I regret that the Statute has been broken in upon by parol evidence, and am glad to find Lord Hardwicke, in Hine v. Dodd (n), says, nothing short of actual fraud will do" (o). If a Deed of Appointment of Lands in Middlesex be made in pursuance of a Power in a former Deed, it will be postponed to a Mortgage, subsequent to, but registered before, it (p). Private Acts of Parliament have been relieved against, when obtained on fraudulent suggestions (q). Cases of Fraud in respect to Agreements, will be (h) Bushell v. Bushell, 1 Sch. & Lefr. 102. Worseley and De Mattos, 1 Burr. 474. (i) 7 Anne, c. 20. (k) Forbes v. Denniston, 2 Bro. P. C. 425. S. C. Lord Harcourt's MS. Tables. This is the leading case on the subject, and appears to have been very much considered. Le Neve v. Le Neve, 3 Atk. 646. S. C. Ambl. 436, and 1 Ves. 67, &c. Blades v. Blades, 1 Eq. Abr. 358. S. C. 3 Atk. 654. Beatriff v. Smith, ibid. p. 357. Cheval v. Nichols, 1 Str. 664. S. C. 2. Eq. Abr. 63. Hine v. Dodd, 2 Atl. 275. S. C. Barn. 258. Wrightson and Hudson, 2 Eq. (1) Sheldon v. Cox, 2 Eden, 228. (m) Le Neve v. Le Neve, ut supra. (n) 2 Atk. 275. (0) Jolland v. Stainbridge, 3 Ves. 486. (p) Scraflon v. Quincey, 2 Ves. 413. (q) 2 Black. Com. 346, and the cases mentioned in 5 Cruise's Digest 31, &c. more conveniently considered when we come to treat of the specific performance of Agreements. Another head of Fraud is that of Frauds on Partnerships; as, if one of the Partners unduly pledges the Partnership Firm in discharge of his individual Debt. This, a Court of Equity will not permit; for though one Partner is bound by the acts of his Co-partner in all acts that concern or properly belong to the joint Trade, and bind each other in transactions with every one who is not distinctly informed of any particular circumstances which may vary the case; yet on the other hand, if the transaction has no apparent relation to the Partnership, the presumption is then the other way, and the Partnership will not be bound by the acts of one of the Partners, without special circumstances (g). A., an Attorney, prevailed on B. to become a Partner with him, and B. paid a premium; but before fourteen Months had expired, sued out a Commission against B., and thus dissolved the Partnership. This was held to be a fraud on B., and A. was decreed to return part of the Premium which had been paid, and to deliver up a Bond given to secure the remainder, but an allowance was directed to be made in respect of the time the Partnership subsisted (r). Frauds by Infants have been relieved against; as where a Woman, at the time of her Marriage, was indebted on two promissory Notes, and after the Marriage the Husband gave his Bond for the amount to the Creditor, who thereupon delivered up the Notes and the Bond being put in Suit, the Husband pleaded (q) Ex parte Agace, 2 Cox, (r) Hamil v. Stokes, 1 Daniell, ; his Infancy at the time of giving the Bond. On a Bill filed, the Court ordered the Notes to be returned to the Plaintiff, with directions that the Defendant should not plead the Statute of Limitations to the Action the Plaintiff should bring on the Notes, or any other Plea which the Defendant could not have pleaded at the time the Bond was given; but the Court would not order immediate payment of the money (s). With respect to the form in which relief is given in cases of Deeds fraudulently obtained, the whole transaction, it seems, is undone, and the Parties are restored to their original situation (t). Where a Release of a legal demand has been obtained by Fraud, though such Release will be set aside, yet the Court will not decree payment of the legal demand (u). Where a Conveyance of an Estate has been obtained by Fraud, a Re-conveyance has, in several cases, been directed (x); but it seems unnecessary, and to have been done ex abundanti cautelá (y). No part of a fraudulent Agreement can be supported except where some consideration has been given that cannot be restored and it has consequently become impossible to rescind the transaction in toto, and to replace the parties in the same situation, as where Marriage is the consideration (z). If the Estate has been conveyed (s) Clarke v.Cobley,2 Cox, 178. (1) Daubeny v. Cockburn, 1 Meriv. 644. (u) Pascoe v. Pascoe, 2 Cox, 109. (x) See Barnesley v. Powell, . 1 Ves. 284. (y) See Bates v. Graves, 2 Ves. jun. 294. Hawes and Wyatt, 3 Bro. C. C. 156, and the remarks on that case in Attorney-General and Vigor, 8 Ves. 283. (2) Daubeny v. Cockburn, 1 Meriv. 643. |