Legal Opinion
Fenwick Et Ux. v. Sullivan Et Ux.
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided March 14, 1929PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPowers, J.
By this bill in chancery, the plaintiff seeks to set aside an exchange of properties on the ground of fraud. The bill was demurred to, and was adjudged insufficient and dismissed. The plaintiff appealed.
The only fraud charged in the bill is covered by an allegation that the defendant, Thomas Sullivan, falsely and fradulently represented to the plaintiff that he paid $5,000 for the Essex Junction property which was transferred to the plaintiff in the exchange, whereas in truth and fact he only paid $3,700 therefor. And it is alleged that by this the plaintiff was induced to exchange his…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Fairchild v. . McMahonNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Crompton v. BeedleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1910
- Jenness v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- Vermont Hydro-Electric Corp. v. DunnSupreme Court of Vermont · 1921
- Belka v. AllenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Goldsmith v. Mead Johnson & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1939
- Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. KnutsenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1974
- Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Town of Washington GroveCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
- In re J. H. & R. H.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1983
- Barre Trust Co. v. Ladd Et Ux.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1931
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.