Edwards v. Owen
Ohio Supreme Court
. This is a Writ of Error to the Court, of Common Pleas' of Montgomery County. " The original action was .case. ' The declaration averred,- in substance, that Owen held a note against Edwards for $278,' .due November 5, 1841. That on the 17th of June, 1841, ■Edwards fraudulently, &c., represented himself to Owen as insolvent and unable to pay his debts, and thereby induced him to give up said note and receive, in satisfaction of it, certain property worth hot over $75, by…
Read the full summary
. This is a Writ of Error to the Court, of Common Pleas' of Montgomery County. " The original action was .case. ' The declaration averred,- in substance, that Owen held a note against Edwards for $278,' .due November 5, 1841. That on the 17th of June, 1841, ■Edwards fraudulently, &c., represented himself to Owen as insolvent and unable to pay his debts, and thereby induced him to give up said note and receive, in satisfaction of it, certain property worth hot over $75, by which he was defrauded out of and lost $203, when in-fact said,Edwards was solvent. To this declaration there was -a…
1Opinion of the CourtBirchard, J.
The first assignment of error goes to the sufficiency of the declaration which it is said cannot be maintained, mainly, because, if the note in question was given up by reason of the fraudulent inducement, without full payment, there is a plain remedy, by action of assumpsit upon the note, and that, in such a case, no special action upon the case can be *503resorted to. Of this opinion are two of the members of this Court, while the other members hold that, notwithstanding the action of' assumpsit might be maintained, the special action upon the case will also lie; that the defrauded party may…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Baker v. FettersOhio Supreme Court · 1866
- Dingman v. DingmanOhio Supreme Court · 1883
- Stoffberg v. Hosbach Motors, Inc.Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1924