Legal Opinion · Dissent

Philadelphia Workingmen's Saving, Loan & Building Ass'n v. Wurzel

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 15, 1946No. Appeals, 88 and 121Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Maxey:

I find nothing in this record which warrants a court in stigmatizing the defendant, Maurice L. Wurzel, as a “fraud”. There can be no fraud without bad faith in making a statement or doing an act and there must be an intent to deceive another to that other’s damage. See Lamberton et al. v. Dunham, 165 Pa. 129, 30 A. 716. As Chief Justice Gibson said in Bokee & Co. v. Walker, 14 Pa. 139, “. . . constructive deceit is a new thing under the sun, and actual deceit is exclusively for the jury. . . . In an action for deceit, the jury have to deal with a…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Nanty-Glo Boro. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Girard Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  3. Houghten v. Restland Memorial Park, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  4. Erie City Iron Works v. Barber & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
  5. Cox v. HighleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882

6 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