Legal Opinion

Salmon v. Richardson

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided February 15, 1862PublishedCited by 20 opinions

Action on the case, against Joseph Richardson, William H. Noble, Nathan S. Morse, H. W. Chatfield, Nathaniel Green, Daniel Hatch and Russell Tomlinson, for an injury to the plaintiff by the fraudulent representations of the defendants, as directors of the Bridgeport Insurance Company, with regard to the assets and condition of the company, by which he was induced to insure his property in the company.

Read the full summary

Action on the case, against Joseph Richardson, William H. Noble, Nathan S. Morse, H. W. Chatfield, Nathaniel Green, Daniel Hatch and Russell Tomlinson, for an injury to the plaintiff by the fraudulent representations of the defendants, as directors of the Bridgeport Insurance Company, with regard to the assets and condition of the company, by which he was induced to insure his property in the company. The fourth count of the declaration was as follows :— And the plaintiff further declares and says, that said Bridgeport Insurance Company was duly incorporated under and by virtue of the laws of…

1Opinion of the CourtSanford, J.

It is unnecessary for us to examine all of the counts in this declaration, because we are satisfied that the fourth is sufficient, and upon that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment whether the other counts are good or not.

This count charges that the defendants were, and acted as, directors of the insurance company; “ that for the purpose of giving the company a false and fictitious credit, and to increase the business of said company and to add to their own profits as stockholders of said company, the said directors, the defendants, did falsely and fraudulently represent and publish to the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Allen v. CurtisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
  2. Goodspeed v. East Haddam BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1852
  3. Denny v. Manhattan Co.New York Supreme Court · 1846

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Horton v. TyreeWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Fusz v. SpaunhorstSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
  3. Solomon v. . BatesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  4. Gerner v. MosherNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Fisher v. ParrCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1901

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API