Mauney v. Millar
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Cowling, Judge; 1. If the defendants got possession of the mine in ¡had fiaith and for the purpose of injuring or defrauding the plaintiff in his property rights, he was entitled to a ’ verdict, and the court erred in refusing to so instruct the jury. Fraud vitiates every transaction. 32 N. Y. 275; 1 Hun 303; 48 N. Y. S. 130; 1 Ind.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Cowling, Judge; 1. If the defendants got possession of the mine in ¡had fiaith and for the purpose of injuring or defrauding the plaintiff in his property rights, he was entitled to a ’ verdict, and the court erred in refusing to so instruct the jury. Fraud vitiates every transaction. 32 N. Y. 275; 1 Hun 303; 48 N. Y. S. 130; 1 Ind. App. 293; 42 la. 81; 93 Ind. 480. 2. The court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that if the defendants, in procuring the lease, did not intend to perform the duties required of them ¡by law under the lease, they…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellant was the plaintiff in the court below in an action to recover the possession of fifty-nine diamonds in the rough taken from the mine of appellant by appellee. The diamonds were small and in their rough condition were worth only the sum of $101. The complaint alleged, among other things, that in April, 1912, appellee procured a lease from appellant on certain diamond-bearing lands, and that it was procured for the fraudulent purpose of discrediting the mine and to keep appellant in the dark as to the value of the large diamonds discovered, to stifle the business of mining, to depress…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mauney v. MillarSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Iowa City State Bank v. BiggadikeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917