Slingerland v. . Bennett
New York Court of Appeals
This was an action for .frapd. Defendant purchased of plaintiff a pair of horses, turning out in part payment a promissory note. The fraud - alleged was -fraudulent representations as to the responsibility of the maker of the note. Plaintiff sued the note and obtained judgment, but could not collect.
Read the full summary
This was an action for .frapd. Defendant purchased of plaintiff a pair of horses, turning out in part payment a promissory note. The fraud - alleged was -fraudulent representations as to the responsibility of the maker of the note. Plaintiff sued the note and obtained judgment, but could not collect. The court charged, among other things, in substance, that if the jury believed the alleged fraud established, plaintiff, -in addition to the amount of the note, was entitled to recover the costs in the action against - the maker, with -interest, to which defendant’s counsel duly excepted. -Held,…
1Per curiam
opinion for reversal and new trial, unless plaintiff stipulates to deduct from the recovery the sum of ninety-three dollars and thirty-six cents, and-if he so stipulates, the judgment, as so modified, affirmed.
All concur.
Judgment accordingly
2Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. BollesSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Findlater v. DorlandMichigan Supreme Court · 1908