Gaty v. Holcomb
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Washington Circuit Court. Hon. J. M. Pittman, Circuit Judge. In executed contracts to obtain a rescission the party-must allege and prove a distinct case of fraud, where a fraud is relied on for relief. {18 Bush., Ky., 893; 59 III., 375.) Here there was no fraud. Appellant submitted the machine to a practical test; appellee saw it work, and accepted its performance as satisfactory.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Washington Circuit Court. Hon. J. M. Pittman, Circuit Judge. In executed contracts to obtain a rescission the party-must allege and prove a distinct case of fraud, where a fraud is relied on for relief. {18 Bush., Ky., 893; 59 III., 375.) Here there was no fraud. Appellant submitted the machine to a practical test; appellee saw it work, and accepted its performance as satisfactory. He cannot now object or demand rescission. 1 Srn $ M., 44-3; 13 Peters, 86. He might have protected himself by a covenant, and had an adequate and complete remedy at law. 181 Mass., 887 ; 88 Ark., 198;…
1Opinion of the CourtEakin, J.
This is a suit in equity to cancel a contract for the purchase of the right to make, sell and use in the State of Arkansas, an invention for pulling stumps, bi’ought ■by appellant Holcomb against Gaty, the owner of the patent.
The right was transferred to Holcomb, in exchange for ■certain real estate yet in the hands of Gaty, and which Holcomb seeks to regain by rescission. The material charges of the bill are: That the specifications for constructing a particular size of the machine, the dimensions, mode of operating, etc., were set forth in a printed circular, which was furnished…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Hinkle v. BroadwaterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Mooney v. TylerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
- Wood v. WoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Horn Et Ux. v. GibsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. BaileySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.