TURNER
v.
WARD
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.
The plaintiff sold goods to the defendant based on false representations about the defendant's firm's financial condition, and the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to rescind the contract and restore the goods, finding that although the defendant's statements were not precise matches to those originally alleged, they were of sufficient similar character to justify the rescission remedy.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This case presents for our consideration little else than a question of fact. The plaintiffs charge in substance that they were induced by false representations to sell the defendants certain goods, and asked to have the contract of sale rescinded, and their goods restored. The testimony is all embraced in the depositions of one of the plaintiffs and one of the defendants and an agreed statement. There is some discrepancy between the statements of the two witnesses, but it is apparent from the testimony of the defendant, who made the representations complained of, that he himself had been deceived in respect to the pecuniary condition of his firm. It would be but natural, therefore, that he should mislead the plaintiffs. He supposed the firm had stock on hand to the amount of twenty or twenty-five thousand dollars, and owed from five to eight thousand. According to his own statement, he so told the plaintiff. In point of fact, he was mistaken, and his statement was untrue. The firm was largely in debt, and in less than sixty days it failed and made an assignment. Before this, however, it executed two chattel mortgages upon the stock, each purporting upon its face to secure the payment of ten thousand dollars, though it appears that the amount actually owing to . the mortgagees was not so much.
Mr. Charles P. Crosby, Mr. J. M. Carlisle and Mr. J. D. McPherson for appellants.
Mr. Ashley Pond and Mr. Henry B. Brown for appellees.
The representations proven are not in the precise language of those averred in the bill, but they are of the same general character, and in our opinion, sufficient to justify the decree rendered in the court below, and it is, therefore, Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manly v. Ohio Shoe Co. in re Baltimore Shoe House, Inc., 25 F.2d 384 (4th Cir. 1928)…n in the latter ease is justified even though the bankrupt may have intended to pay and may himself have been misled as to his financial condition and not have known that the material false representations were untrue. Turner v. Ward, 154 U. S. 618, 14 S. Ct. 1179, 23 L. Ed. 391; In re New York Commercial Co., supra; 12 R. C. L. p. 345, § 100; Collier on Bankruptcy (13th Ed.) vol. 2, pp. 1717, 1718. In the case at bar we think that the evidence shows fraud of both kinds, and that the order directing the retu…1 / 2
-
Taylor v. Burr Printing Co., 26 F.2d 331 (2d Cir. 1928)…it settled law that when a seller makes such a declaration as an inducement to the buyer’s acceptance, the buyer may rescind^ without proving the seller’s guilty knowledge. Smith v. Richards, 13 Pet. 26, 10 L. Ed. 42; Turner v. Ward, 154 U. S. 618, 14 S. Ct. 1179, 23 L. Ed. 391; Independent Harvester v. Tinsman, 253 F. 935 (C. C. A. 7); In re American Knit Goods Mfg. Co., 173 F. 480 (C. C. A. 2); Williston, § 1500. In a sense any assertion is a statement of fact even though it be only an opinion. It involv…1 / 2
-
In re Johnson v. Johnson, 691 F.2d 249 (6th Cir. 1982)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence