Willock v. Dilworth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 26, Oct. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June T., 1900, No. 482, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of S. M. Willock v. Lawrence Dilworth et al. Trespass for deceit. Before Stowe, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off. Error assigned was in refusing to take off nonsuit.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Bbown,
This is an action for deceit, and the facts can be very briefly stated. Willock, the plaintiff below, alleges that he subscribed, at the solicitation of Ache, one of the defendants, for ten shares of the capital stock of a proposed corporation, to be known as The American Food and Oil Company. Nothing appears to have been said to him upon the subject by any of the other defendants. Ache represented to him that the capital stock of the company would be $60,000, of which a patentee, named Weatherly, was to get $29,000 for his patents, to be used by the company as the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Slavin v. Germantown Fire Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949
- Finletter v. Acetylene Light, Heat & Power Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Slavin v. Germantown Fire Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949