Jones v. Emery
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, upon an agreement of the defendant, made September 26, 1857, that, in consideration of his having that day contracted to purchase of the plaintiff a house and lot on Pine street, in Manchester, and promised to pay him therefor one thousand dollars on the first day of January, then next, he would pay the plaintiff one hundred dollars on the second day of January, then next, if he failed to make the payment of one thousand dollars according to his promise.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon an agreement of the defendant, made September 26, 1857, that, in consideration of his having that day contracted to purchase of the plaintiff a house and lot on Pine street, in Manchester, and promised to pay him therefor one thousand dollars on the first day of January, then next, he would pay the plaintiff one hundred dollars on the second day of January, then next, if he failed to make the payment of one thousand dollars according to his promise. A deed of the premises, a note for the $1,000, and this agreement, were all lodged with a third person, to bo delivered to the…
1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.
The principle of the common law is well and distinctly settled, that positive fraud vitiates every thing — contracts, obligations, deeds of conveyance, and even the records and judgments of courts, incontrovertible as they are on every other ground; and contracts entered into upon fraudulent representations are voidable at the election of the party defrauded. Hoitt v. Holcomb, 23 N. H. 535; Bank v. Gregg, 14 N. H. 331; Woods v. Kirk, 28 N. H. 329.
But fraud is never to be presumed, and must be clearly established by proof. Not that positive and express proof must always be given, for whenever…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Van Der Stok v. Van VoorheesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2005
- Lizzol v. Brothers Property, et al.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 2016
- Molloy v. Bemis Bro. Bag Co.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1959