Holman v. Dord & Rowe
New York Supreme Court
This was an action on the case, brought by the plaintiff, James S. Holman, against Claudius Dord, Daniel Behrman and Edward Rowe, defendants.
Read the full summary
This was an action on the case, brought by the plaintiff, James S. Holman, against Claudius Dord, Daniel Behrman and Edward Rowe, defendants. The declaration, entitled of May term, 1847, contained five counts; the three first alledging, in substance, fraudulent representations of the description, quality, and value of certain goods belonging to the defendant, Dord, and which were by him delivered to the plaintiff, in exchange for a conveyance of real estate in the state of Texas, executed and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, Dord, on first of April, 1847. The fourth and fifth…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Edmonds, P. J.
As to the objection arising on the pleadings, that there is no averment of a scienter, the answer is, that none was necessary. It is the action on the case on a false warranty, where it is enough to aver, and to prove, that the warranty was false, and the purchaser was deceived by it.
It is also objected, that there was no false warranty to bind Dord; that he made none himself, and that for what representations were made by Behrman he is not responsible, as Behrman was not his agent. It is evident that there was a false warranty, both by Rowe and Behrman. Rowe said…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Case v. HardenbrookAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- Abilene Natlional Bank v. NodineOregon Supreme Court · 1894
- Cannon v. Van WagnerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1855
- Cheney v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1879
- Hawkins v. PembertonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1868
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.