Dilworth v. Bradner
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1877, No. 229. Action on the case for deceit, by Bradner & Hartman, against William Dilworth. The plaintiffs, in their declaration, averred that the defendant had falsely and deceitfully, and for the purpose of defrauding plaintiffs, alleged “ that he was good and solvent, and able to pay for what he bought.”
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1877, No. 229. Action on the case for deceit, by Bradner & Hartman, against William Dilworth. The plaintiffs, in their declaration, averred that the defendant had falsely and deceitfully, and for the purpose of defrauding plaintiffs, alleged “ that he was good and solvent, and able to pay for what he bought.” Dilworth, the defendant, was for many years extensively engaged in the lumber business. In the year 1875 he was the owner of|large amounts of real estate, situated in different parts of the city…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Swarswood
We find no error in the refusal of the court below to charge as requested in the defendant’s first point, and the error in the charge is not properly assigned.
But we are of opinion that the defendant was entitled to an unqualified affirmance of his fourth point, and that the qualifica tion added by the learned judge was erroneous, and the second assignment of error must therefore be sustained.
This was an action to recover damages for a false and fraudulent representation by the defendant of his circumstances, by which the plaintiff had been induced to give him credit. The rule which must…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Griswold v. GebbieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889