Jones v. Bolles/Opinion of the Court

by Joseph P. Bradley

United States Supreme Court

76 U.S. 364

Jones  v.  Bolles

We have examined the proofs in the cause and find them to be very full and convincing against the appellant, and are satisfied with the decree of the Circuit Court, unless the same be invalid for some jurisdictional or technical reason.

It is objected that a court of equity has no jurisdiction of the case because the law affords a complete remedy in damages. This objection is groundless. Equity has always had jurisdiction of fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment; and it does not depend on discovery. But in this case a court of law could not give adequate relief. The agreement complained of is perpetual in its nature, and the only effectual relief against it, where the keeping of it on foot is a fraud against parties, is the annulment of it. This cannot be decreed by a court of law, but can by a court of equity.

It is next objected that there is a misjoinder of defendants by reason of making the mining company a party. But the company is directly interested, and though no relief is prayed against it, but rather in its favor, it is eminently proper that it should be made a party, complainant or defendant. It could not be made complainant against its will, and, besides, its own agents joined in the fraudulent representations that were made. As a separate and independent personality, therefore, distinct from the stockholder interest, there was propriety in making it a party defendant.

It is also objected that the appellee, Bolles, does not distinctly state or prove the amount of his interest in the company. The bill expressly states that the appellee purchased on his own account and in trust for other parties a large number of shares, and paid therefor upwards of $25,000; and then afterwards states that the appellant threatened to bring an action against the company to enforce his pretended claim for rents and purchase-money, whereby the stock of the company, which the appellee alleges he purchased in good faith, and which he still held, was liable to become greatly depreciated in value. This is surely an allegation of a large interest, and the statement is nowhere denied in the answer. The appellant avers only his ignorance on the subject. But the allegation is fully corroborated by the proof, at least so far forth as relates to the purchase of stock by the appellee. No question was made on the examination as to his still holding the stock.

We do not perceive any legal grounds of objection to the decree, and it is therefore.

AFFIRMED.

Notes