OLIVEB V. OUNNINQHaII. 689 �OiiTVEB V. CuNNiNGHAM and othetB. �(Oireuit Oov/rt, E. B. Michigan. April 17, 1881.) �1. MOKTGAGQB AITD MOBTGAGEB^POSSBSSION— Fr AUD . �The sale of an equity of redemption will be closely scrutiniised, ■when such equity has been purchased by the mortgagee. �2. Samb— Praud. �In such case, constructive fraud, or an unoonscionable adrantagOy will be auffloient to avoid the sale. �3. Same — Re8 Adjddicata. �The judgment of a court, in a suit to foreclose a mortgage, is net Tes adjudicata as to any matter which the defendant was not entl- tled, as a matter of right, to have litigated in such suit. — [Ed. ' ' �In Equity. �Alfred Bussell and Walker and Burton, for complainant. �H. M. Duffield and Mr. Lathrop, for defendants. �WiTHEY, D. J. This is a bill to set aside a conveyance of the property in question, made by complainant to the defend- ant Cunningham, which it is claimed was made to euable him, Cunningham, to satisfy from the issues of the estate, by sale or otherwise, a mortgage of $35,000 held by himself and his co-defendants Hunt and Eschelman, together with other indebtednesB of Oliver. The bill also asks to have set aside a conveyance of the same lands made by the defendant Cun- ningham to his co-defendants G. J. Eobinson, Haines, and Eanney ; and for an accounting by all the defendants for the issaes, rents, and profits of the property since the second- named conveyance. �It is alleged that the conveyance to Eobinson, Haines, and Eanney was made for the benefit of all the defendants, including Cunningham himself, and with full knowledge on their part of all Oliver's rights in the premises. I shall not enter upon an elaborate discussion of the evidence, or give at length the reasons for my conclusions, but content my^elf by stating the principal facts, my conclusions, and brieflv the reasons thereior. �In the summer or fall of 1868 Oliver owned about 12,500 �acres of pine lands, and held a contract for the purchase of v.7,no.7— 44 ��� �
