Roome v. Jennings
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from city court, general term. Action by William P. Roome and others against Frederick 0. Jennings and another. Plaintiffs had judgment, which was affirmed by the city court at general term, (20 N. Y. Supp. 614,) and defendants appeal. Reversed. For report on vacating attachment, see 19 N. Y. Supp. 825.
1Opinion of the CourtPryor, J.
It is impossible to sustain this judgment. The pleading is peculiar, but, in effect, the action is by a vendor to recover damages for a fraudulent representation in the purchase of a chattel. The complaint states a cause of action for deceit, and for nothing else; the case was tried as , an action for deceit; and the argument on the appeal still treats the action as for deceit. But the complaint alleges a rescission of the contract .of sale by the plaintiffs, because of the defendants’ fraud; and on the trial the rescission was established by uncontroverted and conclusive evidence. How, then,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Masson v. BovetCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- Krumm v. . BeachNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Schiffer v. . DietzNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Whitney v. AllaireNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Kinney v. . KiernanNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Holcomb & Hoke Mfg. Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- Miller v. Arizona BankArizona Supreme Court · 1935
- Meyer & Greenwald Construction Co. v. Salina Gravel Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
- Jelenk v. AlbertNew York Supreme Court · 1928
- Martin v. ClarkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.