Scholtz v. Kerschensteiner

Defendants’ counsel first argue that the alleged false representations were partly as to existing facts and referred partly to the future; that the alleged representations referring to the future constituted a mere promise, and that a promise cannot constitute a false representation upon which plaintiff has a right to rely, and is therefore not in law the basis for an action grounded on fraud.

At the time when the alleged representations were made, the plaintiff had a lawful subsisting claim against the company in the sum of $6,500, which was due, upon which he was entitled to a judgment, and…