Legal Opinion

Live Stock Remedy Co. v. White

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided June 3, 1901PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from Vernon Circuit Court. — Hon. H. C. Timmonds, Judge. (1) Proof of the scienter is essential in a defense based on fraudulent representations. Peers v. Davis, Admrs., 29 Mo. 1S4. Fenwick v. Bowling, 50 Mo. App. 516; Bank v. Byers, 139 Mo. 627. (2) It was therefore error to refuse instruction asked by plaintiff and error was committed in giving instruction No. 4 asked by defendant, and No. 1 given of the court’s own motion.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Vernon Circuit Court. — Hon. H. C. Timmonds, Judge. (1) Proof of the scienter is essential in a defense based on fraudulent representations. Peers v. Davis, Admrs., 29 Mo. 1S4. Fenwick v. Bowling, 50 Mo. App. 516; Bank v. Byers, 139 Mo. 627. (2) It was therefore error to refuse instruction asked by plaintiff and error was committed in giving instruction No. 4 asked by defendant, and No. 1 given of the court’s own motion. (3) It was error to give instruction No. 4 at defendant’s request, because by Ms own admission he had, up to the time of the trial, sold several hundred pounds of…

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.

This is an action on a promissory note. The answer of the defendant was to the effect, (1) that Keis-. ter, payee in said note (plaintiff’s assignor), and one Sparks, sold defendant two thousand pounds of “Dr. Lyons’ Hog and Poultry Remedy,” with the exclusive right to sell the same in Vernon county, for.the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars, and for which amount said note was executed; (2) that Keister and Sparks, as agents of plaintiff, to induce defendant to purchase said remedy, represented to him that it was a sure cure for hog and chicken cholera and all other diseases of hogs and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Comings v. LeedySupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
  2. Bank of Atchison County v. ByersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
  3. State v. McCoySupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
  4. Fenwick v. BowlingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Thompson v. NewellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API