Legal Opinion

African Metals Corp. v. Teeter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 28, 1941PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

The judgment in favor of the defendants Teeter and Bullowa should be affirmed.

We think, however, the complaint as against the defendant Meade should not have been dismissed at the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case. The jury could have found that the second cause of action for fraud asserted by each of the plaintiffs was established by the evidence as against the defendant Meade.

It has been directly held that, in an action for rescission in equity, an agent who has made fraudulent representations is hable to restore the consideration even though the principal, and not the agent, has received…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mack v. . LattaNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
  2. Seneca Wire & Manufacturing Co. v. A. B. Leach & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
  3. Lehman-Charley v. BartlettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
  4. Lehman-Charley v. . BartlettNew York Court of Appeals · 1911

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. African Metals Corp. v. TeeterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
  2. Bridgmon v. WalkerOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Bridgmon v. WalkerOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Springman v. GibbsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API