Summary

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Wasatch Mining Company v. Crescent Minning Company…

But we think this omission to make Ferry a party really shows that the complainant was not proceeding on a case of fraud and conspiracy between the defendant company and Ferry, as the principal ground for relief. The allegations respecting Ferry were to show reasons why the deed was accepted by the plaintiff company, and how the delay to institute proceedings was accounted for. The word 'fraud,' as a term in legal proceedings, generally, is rather a legal conclusion than an independent fact.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Wasatch Mining Company v. Crescent Minning Company…

Indeed, upon the very same state of facts, an intelligent man, acting deliberately, might well be regarded as guilty of fraud, and an ignorant and inexperienced person might be entitled to a more charitable view. Yet the injury to the complainant would be the same in either case.
The substantial meaning of the cases cited by the appellant is that the matters alleged in the bill, as injurious to the complainant, must be those proved on the trial, and relied on by the court in awarding relief
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature