Von Bruck v. Peyser
The Superior Court of New York City
The action was to recover damages as well for a false and fraudulent representation made to the plaintiffs by the defendant, as for the fraudulent concealment from the plaintiffs of facts within the defendant’s knowledge. On the trial, before a justice of this court and a jury, it was proved that on the first of February, 1858, the defendant wrote and transmitted to the plaintiffs a letter, of which the following is a copy; “ New York, February 1, 1858. “ Messrs.
Read the full summary
The action was to recover damages as well for a false and fraudulent representation made to the plaintiffs by the defendant, as for the fraudulent concealment from the plaintiffs of facts within the defendant’s knowledge. On the trial, before a justice of this court and a jury, it was proved that on the first of February, 1858, the defendant wrote and transmitted to the plaintiffs a letter, of which the following is a copy; “ New York, February 1, 1858. “ Messrs. H. Von Brack’s Sons : ' I hereby respectfully advise you that I have this day made over my business, with debits and credits, to my…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court, The representation contained in the defendant’s letter of the first of February, 1858, that Ranter, to whom he had sold and transferred his business, would continue it with “ undiminished means,” was a representation capable of being interpreted into meaning that the pecuniary means and facilities possessed by Ranter were equal to those possessed by the defendant, and that such means and facilities would be employed by Ranter in conducting his business as the defendant’s successor. The defendant for many years had been engaged in the business to which Ranter succeeded, and from…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Brien v. SargentSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1858