Young & Otis v. Covell
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action on the case. The declaration contained six counts. The first count stated that the plaintiffs were, on the 17th of April, 1806, joint owners of the one half of the sloop Alert. Young lived in Troy, and Otis in New-York.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on the case. The declaration contained six counts. The first count stated that the plaintiffs were, on the 17th of April, 1806, joint owners of the one half of the sloop Alert. Young lived in Troy, and Otis in New-York. One Davis, of Rhode7 7 Island, applied to Younsr, at Troy, to purchase the half * . r of ine sloop, belonging to the plaintiffs, and offered pay 800 dollars, on the sale and delivery of the sloop, and 700 dollars, on a credit; and Young being ignorant of the circumstances and credit of Davis, or whether he might be safely trusted, at the instance of Davis,…
1Per curiam
It is well settled that this action cannot be sustained without proving actual fraud in the defendant, or an intention to deceive the plaintiff, by false representations. The simple fact of misrepresentation, unconnected with a fraudulent design, is not sufficient. The evidence produced.by the plaintiffs at the trial did *26not ma-le out the fraud, or show enough to justify the jury in drawing that conclusion. The defendant made no suppression of facts within his knowledge. He stated correctly the circumstances of the connections of Davis in Rhode-Island. He lived on friendly terms with the…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Wakeman v. . DalleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Lord v. GoddardSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Rolfes v. RusselOregon Supreme Court · 1875
- Reed v. HolcombSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1863
- Wren v. HoffmanMississippi Supreme Court · 1868
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.