Budd v. T. C. Power & Co.
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from the Third Judicial District, Gallatin County. The opinion states the facts. In making out the defense of fraud in this action (on a promissory note) the defendants should have alleged and proved that the representations made by the vendor in the sale of the property were false, and that he knew them to be false, and intended to deceive the defendants. (Sharp v. Mayor, 25 How.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Third Judicial District, Gallatin County. The opinion states the facts. In making out the defense of fraud in this action (on a promissory note) the defendants should have alleged and proved that the representations made by the vendor in the sale of the property were false, and that he knew them to be false, and intended to deceive the defendants. (Sharp v. Mayor, 25 How. Pr. 389; Addington v. Allen, 11 Wend. 374; Barber v. Morgan, 51 Barb. 116; Van De Sande v. Hall, 13 How. Pr. 458; Palmer v. Smedley, 18 How. Pr. 321; Gushee v. Leavitt, 5 Cal. 160; 63 Am. Dec. 116; Bayard v.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcConnell, C. J.
The appellant, who was the plaintiff below, brought an action against the respondents before a justice of the peace of Gallatin County upon a promissory note, for the sum of two hundred and seventy-two dollars, dated November 22, 1886, payable to W. S. De Lancy ninety days aft.er date. The plaintiff below filed a complaint setting out the note sued on. To this there is no exception. The respondents filed an answer, which, after admitting that they executed and delivered the note sued on, proceeded to state that it was given for an “ undivided half interest in a certain drove of stock cattle…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McLean v. HoustonTennessee Supreme Court · 1870
- Barbee v. WilliamsTennessee Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by2 opinions
- York v. StewardMontana Supreme Court · 1898
- Budd v. PowerMontana Supreme Court · 1889