Citat:
Jag är i ärlighetens namn inte alls intresserad av ett 143 år gammalt utslag från SCOTUS som behandlar en markdispyt och jag förstår inte varför du tycker det är viktigt och relevant. Men det är säkert väldigt viktigt just för dig.
Citat:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/98/61
The bill in this case is filed May 13, 1876, more than twenty years after the rendition of the decree which it seeks to annul. During that time Richardson, the claimant, and the man who is personally charged with the guilt of the fraud, has died; his heirs, who with himself were claimants in the suit, are not made parties, and the land has passed from his ownership to that of the present defendants by purchase and conveyance.
...
There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. There is also no question that many rights originally founded in fraud become—by lapse of time, by the difficulty of proving the fraud, and by the protection which the law throws around rights once established by formal judicial proceedings in tribunals established by law, according to the methods of the law—no longer open to inquiry in the usual and ordinary methods. Of this class are judgments and decrees of a court deciding between parties before the court and subject to its jurisdiction, in a trial which has presented the claims of the parties, and where they have received the consideration of the court.
...
There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. There is also no question that many rights originally founded in fraud become—by lapse of time, by the difficulty of proving the fraud, and by the protection which the law throws around rights once established by formal judicial proceedings in tribunals established by law, according to the methods of the law—no longer open to inquiry in the usual and ordinary methods. Of this class are judgments and decrees of a court deciding between parties before the court and subject to its jurisdiction, in a trial which has presented the claims of the parties, and where they have received the consideration of the court.
Vi tar det några gånger till så du inte missar det jag fetade:
There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.
There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.
There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.
There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.
There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.
There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.
Du får gärna förklara många gånger att du anser att bedrägeri inte ska vara skäl till att nullifiera ett avtal. Det roar mig att läsa.
__________________
Senast redigerad av Hundvisslaren 2021-07-27 kl. 17:59.
Senast redigerad av Hundvisslaren 2021-07-27 kl. 17:59.
Skapa ett konto eller logga in för att kommentera
Du måste vara medlem för att kunna kommentera