W. G. ALLEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
UNITED ZINC COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Allen issued promissory notes for corporate stock subscription to United Zinc Company and later challenged the enforceability of the notes by asserting fraud claims. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the creditor, holding that the alleged misrepresentations were merely opinions, future promises, or too indefinite to constitute actionable fraud.
The representations were not actionable fraud because they consisted of opinions rather than statements of actual fact, mere promises about future use of funds, or were too indefinite to be material. Judgment for United Zinc Company was affirmed.
“To constitute fraud, a misrepresentation must be of a specific material fact that is untrue and known to be so, and stated for the purpose of inducing another to act, upon which statement the other relies in acting to his injury.”
Establishes the legal standard for actionable fraud that Allen failed to meet.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllen subscribed to corporate stock in United Zinc Company by executing two promissory notes. The corporation represented that it was prosperous, had …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Materiality Of Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
The defendant in error brought an action against Allen on two promissory notes. Allen filed five pleas, four of which were excluded by demurrer. There was judgment for the plaintiff and on writ of error the defendant below, contends, that there was material error in sustaining the demurrer to the four pleas. The notes were given for subscription to corporate stock.
In effect the excluded pleas aver that the plaintiff represented to defendant that the plaintiff corporation was prosperous; that the plaintiff corporation had sold a large amount of stock to various persons and that it all had been sold at a uniform price; that the plaintiff had developed its various mines and that valuable paying ores had been found and discovered in them and that the said mines had bid fair to be good paying mines; and that plaintiff guaranteed to this defendant that the proceeds of his notes for subscription for said stock in the said plaintiff corporation would be used for working and mining the Zinc Basin Mine, it being one of the said several mines referred .to, which the said plaintiff corporation represented that it owned.
To constitute fraud, a misrepresentation must be of a specific material fact that is untrue and known to be so, and stated for the purpose of inducing another to act, upon which statement the other relies in acting to his injury. See Heathcote v. Fairbanks 60 Fla. 97; 2 Pom. Eq. Sec. 876.
The averments that the corporation represented that it was prosperous, and that plaintiff represented that it had developed its mines, and found paying ores, and that the mines had bid fair to be good paying mines, are essentially opinions and not statements of actual practical facts. The averment that the plaintiff represented that it guaranteed that the proceeds of the notes would be used in a certain way, is a statement of a mere promise. The averment that the plaintiff represented that it had sold “a large amount” of its stock to various persons, is too indefinite to show that the representation was material.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur. Taylor, J., absent on account of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Stokes v. Victory Land Co., 99 Fla. 795 (Fla. 1930)…ury. There must appear such facts as show a connection between the representation as made and the land value as affected by it. This material element of the alleged fraud may not be left to mere conjecture and averment. See Allen v. United Zinc Co., 64 Fla. 171, 60 So. R. 182; 14 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law (2 Ed.) p. 137 (X). “Falsehood and deceit are always subject to moral condemnation, but it is not appointed to human tribunals to sit in judgment upon mere moral delinquences or [*802] abstract wrongs, a…
-
Busch v. Baker, 79 Fla. 113 (Fla. 1920)…n which he now rests his cause of action. This contention seems well founded. It is true that the allegation falls far short of showing actionable fraud. Huffstetler v. Our Home Life Ins. Co., 67 Fla. 324, 65 South. Rep. 1; Allen v. United Zinc Co., 64 Fla. 171, 60 South. Rep. 182; Williams v. McFadden, 23 Fla. 143, 1 South. Rep. G18. Tint misrepresentation, or concealment, is not required to go to the extent of actionable fraud in order to justify a chancellor in his discretion in refusing to grant specif…
-
Hart v. Marbury, 82 Fla. 317 (Fla. 1921)…ct, possible reduction in price and consequent loss to the defendant. These matters were not such existing material facts concerning which the plaintiffs’ statements could be [*325] stated as fraudulent representations. See Allen v. United Zinc Co., 64 Fla. 171, 60 South. Rep. 182; Riverside Inv. Co. v. Gibson, 67 Fla. 130, 64 South. Rep. 439; Florida Cigar & Tobacco Co. v. Baker & Holmes Co., 62 Fla. 487, 57 South. Rep. 174; Huffstetler v. Our Home Life Ins. Co., 67 Fla. 324, 65 South. Rep. 1. Even if the…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heathcote v. Fairbanks, 60 Fla. 97 (Fla. 1910)