Wardell v. Fosdick & Davis
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of trespass on the case for a deceit in selling to the plaintiff, for a valuable consideration, land which had no existence.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trespass on the case for a deceit in selling to the plaintiff, for a valuable consideration, land which had no existence. The cause was tried before Mr. J. Spencer, at the New-York sittings, in November, 1815. The following are the material facts in the case: William S. Corlies, of the city of New-York, and Mary his wife, by indenture dated the first of January, 1309, conveyed to the defendants, in consideration of the sum of five hundred and fifty dollars, a certain tract of land, described as lying in the township of Moab, in the county of Luzerne, and state of…
1Per curiam
The evidence is sufficient to support the allegation of fraud against both the defendants, and there appears no legal ‘objection to this form of action. Where the party hhs been induced, by such a fraudulent representation, t® *328pay his money, and accept a dééd, it is immaterial whether any, or what, cqvenánts are.contained In the.deed, .The purchaser so, defrauded, has’a right to treat the .deed as: a nullity, and may maintain An- action on the cá.sé for. the deceit. '.(Frost v. Raymond, 2 Caines' Rep. 193. Bostwick v. Lewis, 1 Day, 250. Com. Dig. Action on the Case for Deceit, (A. 8.)
-judgment…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Krumm v. . BeachNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Andrus v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Burns v. DockrayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Peabody v. PhelpsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Green v. . CollinsNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.