Williams v. Wilson
Appellate Court of Illinois
Action for Deceit.—Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1901. This was an action on the case brought by appellant to recover damages by reason of misrepresentations made by appellee as to the number of acres contained in a farm in the State of Mew Jersey.
Read the full summary
Action for Deceit.—Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1901. This was an action on the case brought by appellant to recover damages by reason of misrepresentations made by appellee as to the number of acres contained in a farm in the State of Mew Jersey. Plaintiff and defendant exchanged properties, appellant conveying certain property in the city of Chicago in exchange for the Mew Jersey farm. The declaration alleges that appellee fraudulently and willfully represented to appellant…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. J üstioe Waterman
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is what is known as an action for deceit. It is not based upon the deed given nor upon the contract entered into, but upon alleged fraud by which appellant was induced to enter into the contract ultimated by mutual deeds. Such an action will lie although the parties have entered into a written agreement, thus merging therein the previous negotiations, because the complaint of the plaintiff is of fraudulent practice by which he was persuaded to contract; and such action may be maintained although there be a written warranty or…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Linington v. StrongIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
- N. C. Antle & Bro. v. SextonIllinois Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by3 opinions
- Osborn v. WillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Cockrum v. KellerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1914
- Lyon v. BarneyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1907