the complainant and the defendant, which rendered the sale and transfer presumptively fraudulent and threw the burden upon the defendant to show, by clear and convincing proof, the utmost good faith on his part. On the other hand, it is contended that the relation had terminated by the letter of June 4, 1908, and that the complainant made an independent investigation and did not rely upon any trust or confidence that she had in the defendant. The relation between the parties as principal and agent had not entirely ceased, but we do not consider it worth while to go into the question of a fiduciary relation, for the reason that there was either a mutual mistake or fraud on the part of the defendant which would render the transaction voidable. The defendant was cheated or made a serious mistake in acquiring the bonds, since his investigation through the book-keeper of the Corn Exchange Bank related to a different corporation. At the hearing he did not recollect, or at least did not make any disclosure, as to whether he found out the fact of his error or of the fraud while he held the bonds, but it is remarkable if he did not ascertain in some way that they were worthless. He was a business man who had been actively engaged in the real estate business in Chicago for about fourteen years, and it seems strange if he did not even know what corporation issued the bonds. He did not make any representation to the complainant as to value except to write her that the Corn Exchange Bank had made a certain report, which misled her to investigate the bonds of a different corporation. She made the investigation, but was led by the conduct of the defendant, whether innocent or wrongful, to investigate the wrong corporation. Either the defendant still supposed, at the time of the transaction with the complainant, that the bonds were bonds of the corporation reported upon by the book-keeper, and the complainant was led into the same mistake through him, so that the mistake was mutual, or else he was guilty of a fraud in leading her to make the investigation of the other corporation and deceiving her as to what bonds she was to get. If he prefers the inference that he was ignorant and that there was a mutual mistake rather than that he was attempting to cheat the complainant there is no objection to that conclusion, as it makes no difference in the result. A party will not be given relief against a mistake induced by his own negligence and he must use due diligence to investigate alleged false statements, (Jones v. Foster, 175 Ill. 459,) but when all the facts are considered it cannot be said that the complainant was guilty of negligence. It is not surprising that a widow of her age, not engaged in business, did not notice the difference in the names of the corporations, at least if defendant did not, or discover the mistake until the interest became due, and it was not unreasonable that she should rely upon his statement of a report by the Corn Exchange Bank. In any view of the rights or relations of the parties the transaction was subject to be set aside at the election of the complainant, and the court erred in not setting it aside. The decree is reversed and the cause is remanded to the superior court, with directions to set aside the conveyance as to all lots in controversy the title of which remained in the defendant when the bill was filed, and to take an account and adjust the equities between the parties as to taxes, special assessments and charges against the land paid by the defendant, the cash received by the complainant and the encumbrance upon the land created by the defendant. Reversed and remanded, with directions. INDEX. ABSTRACT OF RECORD. abstract of record must be sufficient to present all errors ABSTRACTS OF TITLE. what is not sufficient proof that abstracts of title were ACCOUNTING. PAGE. 139 388 widow may, by arrangement with heirs, receive part of 118 when heir must be charged with pro rata portion of the 118 when chancellor's finding that complainants in bill for ac- 451 ACTIONS AND DEFENSES. Mines and Miners act does not create a liability for mere 42 delay will not bar relief against fraud of which the in- 56 what is sufficient prima facie proof of title and possession 82 189 court may invoke its general chancery powers when nec- 225 ACTIONS AND DEFENSES.-Continued. when bill to contest will may include relief by way of set- PAGE. 225 when failure to make executors parties within one year 225 when a party is not liable for wrongful seizure of prop- 304 when it is necessary to allege and prove scienter in action ... 359 ... 425 when infants are not entitled to relief because premises ADMINISTRATION.-See EXECUTORS. ADVERTISING.-See BILL-BOARDS. AFFIDAVITS. when affidavit for secondary evidence of deed is in sub- AGENCY.-See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. AMENDMENT. 451 456 538 574 417 when certificate of road tax levy cannot be amended upon APPEALS AND ERRORS. it is sufficient ground for reversal of a tax judgment if 53 56 APPEALS AND ERRORS.-Continued. PAGE. 147 241 ... 349 355 when Supreme Court cannot consider question whether ..... .... 378 379 388 416 416 when right of beneficiaries to sue jointly on certificate can 448 when a chancellor's finding that complainants had parted with their interests before filing bill for accounting will 451 when party cannot raise question of Statute of Frauds in 451 questions not raised in trial court will be deemed waived. 487 539 |