Where pleadings are framed so as to rest the claim for relief solely on the ground of fraud, it is not open to the plaintiff, if he fails in establishing the fraud, to pick out from the allegations of the bill facts which might, if not put forward as proofs of fraud, have yet warranted the plaintiff in asking for relief. But if relief is asked alternatively, either on the ground of fraud, or, failing that ground, then on some other equity, a plaintiff may fail on the first but succeed on the latter alternative, because the attention of the defendant has been distinctly directed to it and he has been called on to answer the case according to both alternatives.
Practitioners framing claims based on actual fraud should consider pleading alternative equitable grounds (such as constructive fraud arising from fiduciary or mortgagee-mortgagor relationships) to avoid being shut out if the fraud claim fails.
No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.
Generate the headnoteFree trial · no card required
Legal principles extracted from this case
Cases that have considered Rich v Strelitz Bros
Referred to (1)
Judicial Consideration (Chronological)