Legal Opinion

Clayton v. Glasscock

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 27, 1930No. 7 Div. 943PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.

It has been said that misrepresentation or concea’ment as to matter of law cannot constitute remedial fraud, because everyone is presumed to know the law, and therefore cannot in legal contemplation be deceived by erroneous statements of law, and such representations are ordinarily regarded as mere expressions of opinion on which the hearer has no right to rely. Further, it has been held that a charge of fraud cannot be predicated on an honest error in a statement of the law. But misrepresentations involving a point of law will be held actionable misrepresentations of fact if it appears that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cartwright v. BralySupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  2. Kerr v. ShurtleffMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
  3. Myers v. LoweryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. National Dist. & Chem. v. American Laubscher Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1976
  2. Sims v. CallahanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1959
  3. Empiregas, Inc. of Ardmore v. HardySupreme Court of Alabama · 1985
  4. Johnson v. SorensenSupreme Court of Alabama · 2005
  5. Bank of Loretto v. BoboAlabama Court of Appeals · 1953

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API