Samuel Hammond, Respondent v. George W. Pennock, Appellant

Summary

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's denial of a new trial, holding that the plaintiff proved fraud sufficient to rescind the contract, acted promptly in seeking rescission, and that the defendant could not avoid restitution by claiming inability to restore. The court also held that the third‑party purchasers and the parties' wives were not necessary parties to the equity action.