Franklin v. Holle
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The court erred in overruling the appellant’s motion for a new trial.— Jaccard v. Davis, 43 Mo. 635 ; Phillips v. Phillips, 46 Mo. 607. On the general propositions in this case, and the liability of defendant, we refer to the following authorities.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The court erred in overruling the appellant’s motion for a new trial.— Jaccard v. Davis, 43 Mo. 635 ; Phillips v. Phillips, 46 Mo. 607. On the general propositions in this case, and the liability of defendant, we refer to the following authorities. To show that there was a duty cast upon defendant to know the truth of this matter by his official relation to the subject-matter, see Wannall v. Keim, 57 Mo. 492. On question of requisites to a recovery. — Dulaney v. Rogers, 64 Mo. 201; Lefever v. Lefever, 30 N. Y. 27 ; Von Bruch v. Peyser, 2 Robt. 468 ; s. c.…
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
This is an action in the nature of an action for deceit. The petition alleges that the defendant, who was then ..cashier of the West St. Louis Savings Bank, falsely represented to the appellant that the bank was solvent and prosperous; that its stock was very valuable and a good investment; and thereby induced the appellant to buy ten shares of its stock, though the defendant at the time knew that the stock was worthless ; to the damage of the plaintiff $1,000. The answer is a general denial; and further, that the representations were not made in writing. There was a verdict and judgment for…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jolliffe v. CollinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
- Stevens v. RainwaterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1877
3Cited by1 opinion
- Runge v. BrownNebraska Supreme Court · 1888