JOHANSSON
v.
STEPHANSON
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.
In a contract dispute involving the sale of land, the Supreme Court affirmed that the seller's statements about property boundaries, overflow conditions, and the locality's healthfulness did not constitute actionable fraud or misrepresentation warranting rescission, as most representations were opinions rather than false facts, the buyer had inspected the property before agreeing, and any factual error regarding the boundary would not have changed the parties' conduct.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
We have carefully examined the voluminous record in this case, and while it is possible that the appellee took advantage of the inexperience of the appellant, and of his ignorance of the country in which he was, to secure an advantageous bargain, the evidence fails to show such fraud or misrepresentation as would justify us, under the established rules of equity jurisprudence by which our judgment must be governed, in decreeing a rescission of the contract, executed as it has been and acted upon by the parties. Many of the representations complained of are clearly nothing more than expressions of opinion. The appellant was taken to and shown the property before the bargain was concluded. The only fact about which there seems really to have been an error in statement was as to the boundary of the land on the river, and if that had been correctly described we do not think it would have changed the conduct of the parties. As to the overflow of the land and the health of the locality, the truth seems to have been stated in respect to the past and an opinion only given as to the probabilities in the future. We must, therefore, affirm the decree.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Patten, 226 U.S. 525 (U.S. 1913)
-
Roosevelt v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co., 78 F.2d 752 (8th Cir. 1935)…dulent representations can never be maintained upon a promise or a prophecy.’ Nor is mere expression of opinion sufficient, though it be false, and be expressed in strong and positive language. Johansson v. Stephanson, 154 U. S. 625, 14 S. Ct. 1180, 23 L. Ed. 1009. Positive statements as to value are generally mere expressions of opinion and as such cannot support an action of deceit. Gordon v. Butler, 105 U. S. 553, 26 L. Ed. 1166; Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1, 9, 23 L. Ed. 521.” See, also, United State…1 / 4
-
United States v. Remington, 64 F.2d 386 (2d Cir. 1933)…court below. In re Wight, 134 U. S. 136, 10 S. Ct. 487, 33 L. Ed. 865; Lincoln Nat. Bank v. Perry, 66 F. 887 (C. C. A. 8). This court cannot change the record as it-is sent to us. See Goodenough, etc., Co. v. Rhode Island, etc., Co., 154 U. S. 635, 14 S. Ct. 1180, 24 L. Ed. 368. We shall assume with the appellant that we must accept the clerk’s certificate as to the indictment brought on for trial. However, the objection is, at best, only a matter of variance between pleading and proof. The substance [*388…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence