Lansing v. Coleman
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action in the nature of an action on the case, for false and fraudulent representations made by the defendant to the plaintiffs, whereby they were induced to purchase from the defendant his interest in a certain fruit-jar business.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action in the nature of an action on the case, for false and fraudulent representations made by the defendant to the plaintiffs, whereby they were induced to purchase from the defendant his interest in a certain fruit-jar business. The plaintiffs alleged, in their complaint, that on the 17th day of July, 1868, the defendant being engaged in business, at Rochester, with another person or persons, in the manufacture and sale of Spencer’s patent fruit jar, and having offered to sell out the undivided one half of the patent for making said jar, one half of the stock on hand, one half…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Talcott, J.
This is an action for fraudulent representations alleged to have been made by the defendant, on the sale to the plaintiffs of the defendant’s interest in a copartnership engaged in the manufacture and sale of the Spencer fruit jars. In addition to the testimony concerning the statements ma<|e by the defendant *619at the time of the sale, the plaintiffs were allowed, against the objection and exception of the defendant, to give in evidence certain representations made by one Bussell to the plaintiffs, preliminarily to the negotiation between the plaintiffs and the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. . TracyNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
3Cited by6 opinions
- Loma Vista Development Co. v. JohnsonTexas Supreme Court · 1944
- Friedman v. New York Telephone Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Hodson v. Wells & Dickey Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- L. D. Garrett Co. v. McCombAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
- Placemaker, Inc. v. Greer, Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler)1983
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.