The allegation of error in this case is confined to a single point. In his brief the counsel for the appellant says, 'The court erred in not making the payment of our bond a condition precedent to the reconveyance of the plantation, as set forth in our motion for a new trial; and on this ground, and from this point of the decree, do we appeal and ask for relief.'
The action was brought to set aside the conveyance of a plantation in Louisiana, made by Macfarland to the appellant Neblett, upon the allegation that the conveyance was obtained by the fraudulent acts and representations of Neblett and his father.
The only consideration given, or professed to be given, by Neblett for the conveyance, was the cancellation of a certain bond for the sum of $14,464.51, executed by Macfarland to Sterling Neblett, the father, and alleged to be the property of Henry Neblett.
The court below adjudged the transaction to be fraudulent, directed the execution of a deed reconveying the property, and ordered the return and redelivery of the bond for $14,464.51, unaffacted by any indorsement of credit or payment thereon, and the same, with the mortgage made for its security, to retain the same lien thereon and the same force and effect as if the deed had not been made, or any cancellation of the bond taken place.
The complaint now made is, that, instead of directing a return of the bond in specie as a condition for the return of the land, the court should have directed the payment of the amount of money secured thereby.
In cases of this character the general principle is, that he who seeks equity must do equity; that the party against whom relief is sought shall be remitted to the position he occupied before the transaction complained of. The court proceeds on the principle, that, as the transaction ought never to have taken place, the parties are to be placed as far as possible in the situation in which they would have stood if there had never been any such transaction. Bellamy v. Sabine, 2 Phil. 425; Samy v. King, 5 H. L. 627; W. B. of Scotland v. Addie, L. R. 1 Scotch App. Cas. 162; Gatley v. Newell, 9 Ind. 572; Johnson v. Jones, 13 Sm. & M. 580; Kerr on Fraud, 335, 343. This is, no doubt, the general rule.
We do not, however, perceive that the principle will benefit the complaining party in this suit.
1. He is restored here to his property that he had and parted with when he received his deed; to wit, his bond and mortgage. If he had paid $14,500 in money, and received in return only a bond for the like amount, of doubtful security and impaired by the lapse of time, he might well have complained. But he paid no money. He surrendered a bond against an insolvent debtor who had left the country, and a mortgage upon an estate abandoned by the owner, and in relation to which the Nebletts, father and son, make the most bitter complaints of its insufficient security.
In his letter of Sept. 29, 1869, Henry Neblett says, 'Your deed lay in the hands of your uncle as an escrow. . . . I have hesitated whether to abandon the place, or struggle to save something by borrowing a large sum, and risk of forced culture in latitude 30 1/4.' Sterling Neblett, the father, writes, 'If Mendoza be correct, as he just advised, that there are numerous debts and some judgments against Mossland' (the plantation in question), 'liens on the property that Henry nor I did not know of, the trust-deed on record at St. Martin's give the only protection against them. . . . Henry is absent, and has long been the true owner of James Edward's bond. I thought of you if interested and my deed to Henry could arrange matters. But alas! so far unsuccessful,-debts to others, less and less probability of buying the Bruossade bonds. . . . How much money will you provide Henry if he decides to go?'
The letter of the same person of February, 1869, is filed with the accounts of the embarrassments and difficulties, of the depreciation of the estate, the claims for taxes, judgments, and general creditors. Among other things, he says, 'I know Henry would let you have his debt' (the bond in question) 'for fifty cents on the dollar.'
We are not able to say, nor is it very material to know, whether these statements were false and fraudulent, or whether the security was really so inadequate as is here represented. Whether good or bad, he receives now the same security that he then gave to his vendor. It would be a perversion of justice to give him the full amount in money for a security then worth but fifty cents on the dollar. If, on the other hand, it was then an adequate security, it is the same now.