Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/193

THEPZ V. KNICKEKBOCKBB LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW TOEK. 179 �luight be proved on the trial; that the physicians wlio had attended him, and who were well aware of his condition and habits, had died shortly before the trial, and she, knowing that the facts could not be reached through them, concealed as far as possible his true condition from the physicians who attended him towards the close of his life, and who were called as witnesses in her behalf; that she herself was a witness on the trial, and in her testimony studionsly concealed the faot that he had been suffering with delirium tremens and spitting of blood, and that his death was caused by his habits of intoxication, and gave an account of his sickness entirely inconsistent with her own knowledge of his condition, and that she congratulated herself npon the successf ul concealment of these facts when the policies were obtained and the payment recovered; and that, upon the discovery of the foregoing facts, the complainants obtained the affidavits of Chris- tina Sitzman, Catherine Engle, and Frank Ehehalt, made in April, 1880, and annexed to the bill of complaint, with the view of obtain- ing a new triai, and made application to the court for the same, which the court declined to grant, in view of the pending writ of error. �The prayer of the bill is that the judgment against the complain- ant may be declared to have been obtained by fra,ud; that the defend- ant may be restrained by injunction from causing any execution to be issued thereon, or from enf orcing the same in any manner against the complainant, and that the complainant may have such other and further relief as shall be agreeable to equity and good conscience. �The general ground on whioh relief is sotight in this case is that the two policies of insurance,.on which the judgment is founded, were obtained by the fraud of the defendant and her deceased husband; that the fraud was unknown to the complainant at the time of the trial, although it was suspected, and efforts were made to find evi- dence of it; and that it was known and concealed by the defendant on the trial, so that the verdict was fraudulently obtained in her favor. �There is no question about the juxisdiction of a court of equity to grant relief against a judgtnent at law on the ground of fraud, whether the fraud was in the transaction or the instrument, on which the action arose, or in the trial and the manij.er of obtaining the judgment. The whole subject was carefully considered iii the case of The Ex'rs of Poivers v. The Adm'r of Butler, 3 Gr. Ch. 465, in which it was held that where facts existed which rendered it inequitable in the plaintif at law to enforee his judgment, and these facts could not avail the, defendant, elther by veason of the rigicl rules of ln,w, or bj ��� �