Hunnewell v. Duxbury
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for fraudulent representations alleged to be made by the defendants as directors of the Electric Advertising Company. The defendants’ answer contained a demurrer to the second count of the declaration, which was overruled in the Superior Court; and the defendants appealed to this court. The case was then tried before Pitman, J., and, after a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendants alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Tort, for fraudulent representations alleged to be made by the defendants as directors of the Electric Advertising Company. The defendants’ answer contained a demurrer to the second count of the declaration, which was overruled in the Superior Court; and the defendants appealed to this court. The case was then tried before Pitman, J., and, after a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendants alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion. The case was argued at the bar in March, 1890, and afterwards, in J une, 1891, was submitted on the briefs to all the judges.
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
The action is tort for deceit, in inducing the plaintiff to take notes of a corporation by false and fraudulent representations, alleged to have been made to him by the defendants, that the capital stock of the corporation, amounting to $150,000, had been paid in, and that patents for electrical advertising devices, of the value of $149,650, had been transferred to it.
From the exceptions, it appears that the corporation was organized in January, 1885, under the laws of Maine, and engaged in business in Massachusetts; that it filed with the commissioner of corporations a certificate containing…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Morgan v. . SkiddyNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Bradley v. PooleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- Felker v. Standard Yarn Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Terwilliger v. Great Western Telegraph Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1871
- Paddock v. FletcherSupreme Court of Vermont · 1869
3Cited by26 opinions
- Hindman v. First Nat. Bank of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1902
- Willett v. HerrickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- National Fertilizer Co. v. Fall River Five Cents Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Wollenberger v. HooverIllinois Supreme Court · 1931
- Nash v. Minnesota Title Insurance & Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.