daughter of the said Andrew Achorn; and the plaintiff has cause to fear, and does fear, that most, if not all, of said defendants will hereafter bring their several actions to recover their pretended claim to said real estate under said will, unless restrained by a judgment of this court, declaring said will to be void. And this plaintiff is further informed and believes, that the claim of right of each of the defendants arises from said will, and from no other source. The plaintiff therefore demands judgment, declaring the said will void as against this plaintiff, and his heirs and assigns' right and title to the premises aforesaid, and perpetually enjoining the defendants, and each of them, from asserting any claim under said will, with costs only as against such of the defendants as shall contest or deny the plaintiff's right to a judgment declaring said will void, as aforesaid. HENRY R. MYGATT, (No. 31.) Prayer of a complaint, by certain devisees in a will, to set aside deeds (executed subsequently to making the will) of a portion of the premises devised, on the ground of the mental incapacity of the grantor, and fraud in obtaining such deeds; praying, also, an issue to try the mental capacity of the grantor. That it may be declared that the said pretended conveyances, purporting to be signed and executed by said C. L. to the said A. R. and to the said D. R., are, and that each of said pretended conveyances is, void and of no effect, and that the lands and real estate, described in said conveyances, belonged to said C. L. at the time of his death, and was, and is, part and parcel of the real estate devised by the last will and testament of said C. L.; and that the said D. R., and A. his wife, may be adjudged to deliver up the said pretended conveyances to be canceled; and that an issue or issues, if necessary, may be directed, to try whether the said C. L. was of sound mind and mentally capable of executing the said pretended conveyances, and whether the same were duly executed by him, and whether they are valid and effectual and operative conveyances, and that all proper directions may be given for that purpose; and that the said D. R., and A. his wife, may be restrained and enjoined by the order and judgment of this court, from claiming any interest, right or title, under or by virtue of said pretended conveyances, or either of them; and that said D. R. may account for the rents and profit of the lands in the county of Washington, since the decease of said C. L.; and that the plaintiffs may have such further relief, or may have such other relief, as the nature of their cases shall require and as shall be agreeable to equity. (No. 32.) By vendee, to recover money paid vendor on a contract for the sale of land, where there have been fraudulent representations, or a mistake in regard to the quantity of land purchased.1 SUPERIOR COURT-CITY OF NEW-YORK. Edward Belknap Benjamin T. Sealey. Edward Belknap, plaintiff in this action, complains of Benjamin T. Sealey, defendant, that the said plaintiff, on or about the 22d day of February, 1851, at the city of New-York, aforesaid, bargained with the defendant to buy of him a certain piece or parcel of ground, of the said defendant, situated and lying at and near the southeast corner of Atlantic-street and Clason-avenue, in the ninth ward in the city of Brooklyn, in the county of Kings and State aforesaid; and the said defendant, well knowing the said premises to be and contain a much less quantity than eight acres and one hundred and fifty-four perches of land, to wit, the quantity of four acres and eight hun 1 The case is reported, 4 Kernan, 144, and the complaint is given verbatim. The Court of Appeals held that a Court of Equity will, on the application of the vendee, rescind an executory contract for the purchase of land, on the ground of mistake in the quantity, notwithstanding the premises are described by metes and bounds, and the term "more or less" is added, after a statement of the quantity, where the mistake, on the part of the purchaser, was caused by the misrepresentation of the vendor, although not fraudulently made, and where the mistake so essentially affected the value of the premises that the contract would not have been made had it not existed. dred and five one-thousandth parts of an acre only, by then and there falsely, and, as plaintiff believes, fraudulently, representing or causing the said premises to be represented to the plaintiff to be and contain eight acres and one hundred and fifty-four perches of land, falsely, and, as plaintiff believes, fraudulently and deceitfully, induced the plaintiff to buy the said premises,' and sold the said premises to the plaintiff for the sum of $14,000, lawful money of the United States of America; that plaintiff paid to the defendant the sum of $1,000, lawful money, as aforesaid, on or about the said 22d day of February, 1851, part and parcel of said purchase money. And plaintiff says, that said premises so sold by the defendant to him, as aforesaid, were not, and did not contain, eight acres and one hundred and fifty-four perches of land; but, on the contrary, contained the quantity of four acres and eight hundred and five one-thousandth parts of an acre only. And plaintiff says, that so the said defendant falsely, and, as he believes, fraudulently, deceived and defrauded the plaintiff, in the said sale to the plaintiff, and thereby he, the plaintiff, lost and was deprived of all the benefit and advantage which he might, and would otherwise, have derived and acquired from the said sale to him, had the 1 The complaint proceeds upon the theory that the plaintiff was induced to purchase by the false and fraudulent representations of the defandant. No such representations were, in fact, proved on the trial; but the relief granted, was on the ground that both parties acted under a mistake. In such a case, the complaint should set forth only the facts necessary to support the action, namely: the representation by defendant of the supposed quantity of land; that plaintiff relied on such representations, and was induced to purchase, believing them to be true, and in so doing acted under a mistake. No false or fraudulent representations should be alleged, unless they can be sustained by proof on the trial. representations so made or caused to be made to him, as aforesaid, by the defendant, been true. And plaintiff further says, that as soon as he ascertained that the said representations were not true, to wit, on or about the 8th day of March, 1851, he demanded of the said defendant a return of the said sum of $1,000, so paid to him by the plaintiff, as aforesaid; but the defendant, thereupon, refused to return said sum, or any part thereof, and still does refuse. Wherefore the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant for the said sum of $1,000, with interest thereon from the 22d day of February, 1851, besides the costs of this action.1 ARCHIBALD HILTON, Plaintiff's Attorney. (6.) CREDITOR'S BILL. (No. 33.) Complaint by a judgment creditor in the nature of a creditor's bill against the judgment debtor alone, to reach equitable interests, things in action, &c., to satisfy a judgment, and praying a preliminary injunction and receiver.2 [ After setting forth the recovery of the judgment, docketing, issuing and return of execution unsatisfied, as in the 1 In addition to the demand for the return of the money paid, under the contract sought to be rescinded, the prayer for relief, in such cases, it seems, should be for judgment that the contract be rescinded, and that it be delivered up to be canceled. This form is adopted from an equity bill in the case of Leitch v. Walker, recently argued in the Court of Appeals. The assignees of |