Summary

Portrait of Howell Edmunds Jackson Howell Edmunds Jackson Root v. Woolworth — Opinion of the Court

It is not necessary to notice or consider separately the numerous assignments of error presented by the appellant. They may be reduced to the following propositions: (1) That the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the bill, because it is in the nature of an ejectment bill, and that there is a full and adequate remedy at law; (2) that there was fraud on the part of Morton and his attorney in obtaining the former decree of 1873, by concealing the fact that Morton, before the beginning of his suit against defendant, had transferred the premises to his brother, William S. T. Morton
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Howell Edmunds Jackson Howell Edmunds Jackson Root v. Woolworth — Opinion of the Court

In support of the assignments of error covered by the first proposition, it is urged on behalf of appellant that the suit should be treated and regarded as an ejectment bill to recover the possession of real estate, such as a court of equity cannot entertain in favor of a party holding a legal title like that which the complainant asserts.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature