Legal Opinion
Laminack v. Black
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided February 9, 1928No. 3498PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLevy, J.
(after stating the facts as above).
It is the admitted rule that one induced by fraud to make a contract of purchase, although it be an executed and not an execu-tory one, may, upon discovery of the fraud, either affirm the contract and sue for damages, or he may repudiate the contract, tender back what he has received under it, and recover what he has parted with as the consideration. 13 O. J. p. 611; 2 Black on Rescission, § 563 ; 2 Pomeroy on Eq. Jur. § 872. If the party elects'to rescind or revoke the contract and to seek for a remedy, then it is incumbent upon him that he assert his…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Roberts v. JamesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1912
- J. B. Colt Co. v. HeadTexas Commission of Appeals · 1927
- Dalton Adding MacHine Sales Co. v. Wicks & Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1926
- Kleeb v. Long-Bell Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1902
- Hubbs v. MarshallCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- City of Del Rio v. Ulen Contracting CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1938
- Gossett v. ManleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931
- Distributors Inv. Co. v. PattonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
- Woods v. FisherCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1937
- Ragnes v. OliverCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1930