US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Plaintiff, having been defrauded in an exchange of lands, sued in the district court to annul his contract and deed and for incidental damages. The court finding that, by acts of ownership, he had affirmed the contract, by its order, under Equity Rule 22, transferred the case to the law side as an action for damages for the deceit, and the bill was amended accordingly, but with no substantial change in the allegations of fraud. Meanwhile, the period of the statute of limitations had expired.

Held:

(1) That the amendment did not change the cause of action and did not constitute the beginning of a new case.

(2) That, since the money relief prayed in the amended petition could properly have been sought as alternative relief in the original bill in equity, and since the transfer to the law side was made upon order of the court in the exercise of its discretion, plaintiff could not be held chanrobles.com-red

Page 247 U. S. 208

to have made such an election of inconsistent remedies as would let in the defense of limitations against the amended demand.

231 F.8d 2 reversed.

The case is stated in the opinion.