Martin v. Clark
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Orren E. Martin,'from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, C. Cooper Clark, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of St. Lawrence on thé 23d day of March, 1897, upon the dismissal of his complaint by direction of the court after a trial at the St. Lawrence Trial Term.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the plaintiff, Orren E. Martin,'from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, C. Cooper Clark, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of St. Lawrence on thé 23d day of March, 1897, upon the dismissal of his complaint by direction of the court after a trial at the St. Lawrence Trial Term. The action was brought to recover damages caused by the fraud and deceit of the defendant in inducing the plaintiff to renew, certain notes of the Adirondack Water Power and Paper Company,. • an insolvent corporation, and thereby preventing the plaintiff from taking…
1Opinion of the Court
Landon, J.:
Deceit causing damage is actionable. ( Upton v. Vail, 6 Johns. 181; Hubbell v. Meigs, 50 N. Y. 480.) We assume for the purposes of our decision that the evidence tended to show deceit upon the part of the defendant, and that the plaintiff would have been entitled to go to the jury upon that question, provided there was also sufficient evidence to entitle him to go to the jury upon the question whether the deceit caused him damage. But we do not think the evidence tended to show, with sufficient certainty to justify its submission to the jury, that the plaintiff sustained any…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Upton v. VailNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Hubbell v. . MeigsNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Bradley v. FullerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Austin v. BarrowsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1874
- Roome v. JenningsNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.