Paris v. Smith
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Action at law by Otto Smith and Boyd Doyle, partners as Smith & Doyle, against Christ Paris. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. This action was brought by the defendants in error for fraud and deceit, and was submitted to the jury by the District Judge as such action.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Action at law by Otto Smith and Boyd Doyle, partners as Smith & Doyle, against Christ Paris. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. This action was brought by the defendants in error for fraud and deceit, and was submitted to the jury by the District Judge as such action. The plaintiff in error attacks the sufficiency of the complaint, and upon the trial moved for a dismissal thereof, which was denied. No defense was interposed, and the plaintiff in error rested upon the proof offered by…
1Opinion of the CourtManton, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The District Judge submitted this testimony to the jury, and permitted them-to determine as a question of fact whether the defendants in error had sustained the burden of establishing their action for fraud and deceit. He instructed the jury that it must be established by a fair preponderance of proof that the plaintiff in error represented to the defendants in error that he was selling pure olive oil, and that in point of fact, the oil so sold was not pure; that these representations so made were relied upon, and that the plaintiff in error, at the time,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Colrick v. . SwinburneNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Thomas v. . BeebeNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Dudley v. . ScrantonNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Carr v. SangerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
3Cited by1 opinion
- B. v. Emery & Co. v. WilkinsonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934