Brown v. Marsh
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of trespass on the case. The declaration charged, in substance — That the defendant conspired with one Temple, (a person of little or no responsibility,) to procure property on the credit of Temple, for the common benefit of both.— That for that purpose the defendant furnished Temple with the means of appearing among strangers as a man of substance and fit to be trusted. — That Temple thus prepared applied to the plaintiff, who was ignorant of his true…
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass on the case. The declaration charged, in substance — That the defendant conspired with one Temple, (a person of little or no responsibility,) to procure property on the credit of Temple, for the common benefit of both.— That for that purpose the defendant furnished Temple with the means of appearing among strangers as a man of substance and fit to be trusted. — That Temple thus prepared applied to the plaintiff, who was ignorant of his true character and circumstances, and purchased certain goods on credit. — That the goods had never been paid for, but had been…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion-of the court was delivered, by,-
Royce, J.:
It .is an ancient and universally admitted principle that fraud will operate to annul a contract,. at the’ election of the party defrauded. And though -in practice it is more usual to seek a remedy founded on the fraud, than to treat-the contract as vacated by it, yet'in cases of gross imposition the latter course has been uniformly sanctioned. There is no occasion, -however, to decide, whether the transaction slated-in the present declaration would, or would not, entitle the plaintiff to disaffirm the sale to Temple. In either case the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sanderson v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1826
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rosenbaum v. HernbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861