You're misrepresenting that phrase regarding who wrote it.
"Fraud vitiates everything" was in a book discussing Res judicata by Wells (sect. 499) and was cited by the Court in it's explanation of the case at hand.
Here's what the Court wrote (whole paragraph included for context):
"'The maxim that fraud vitiates every proceeding must be taken, like other general maxims, to apply to cases where proof of fraud is admissible (emphasis added). But where the same matter has been actually tried, or so in issue that it might have been tried, it is not again admissible; the party is estopped to set up such fraud, because the judgment is the highest evidence, and cannot be contradicted.' It is otherwise, he says, with a stranger to the judgment. This is said in a case where the bill was brought for the purpose of impeaching the decree directly, and not where it was offered in evidence collaterally. We think these decisions establish the doctrine on which we decide the present case; namely, that the acts for which a court of equity will on account of fraud set aside or annul a judgment or decree, between the same parties, rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, have relation to frauds, extrinsic or collateral, to the matter tried by the first court, and not to a fraud in the matter on which the decree was rendered."
If people are going to hang their hat on United States v. Throckmorton (98 U.S. 61) as a justification to act in an extra-constitutional manner - good luck.
Re: 171 - n.b as there’s going to be confusion unless I add.
The Court’s decision in United States v. Throckmorton quoted the paragraph which states “The maxim that fraud vitiates every proceeding must be taken, like other general maxims, to apply to cases where proof of fraud is admissible (emphasis added)” from Greene v. Greene (2 Gray (Mass.), 361.