Tooele Improvement Co. v. Hoffman
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Third District; Son. Geo. G. Armstrong, Judge. Action by Tooele Improvement Company against Frank Hoffman. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. ' appellant's points. False representation of a material fact constituting the inducement of a contract on which the purchaser has a right to rely is always a ground for rescission in a court of equity.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Third District; Son. Geo. G. Armstrong, Judge. Action by Tooele Improvement Company against Frank Hoffman. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. ' appellant's points. False representation of a material fact constituting the inducement of a contract on which the purchaser has a right to rely is always a ground for rescission in a court of equity. A misrepresentation to purchaser of a lot in a village that a large sum is to be invested therein in a manufacturing enterprise if it was the inducing cause of the purchase, entitled him to rescind. The intent of the…
1Opinion
ON APPLICATION POR REHEARING.
PRICK, J.
Appellant has filed a petition for rehearing in which it is insisted that we erred in striking the bill of exceptions.
2 It is vigorously contended that, in sustaining the motion to strike, we not only have in effect overruled the case of Morgan v. O. S. L. R., 27 Utah, 92, 74 Pac. 523, but have ignored the particular provision of Comp. Laws 1907, section 3005, upon which the decision in the Morgan Case is based. It is true that in the Morgan. Case the motion to strike the bill of exceptions was interposed for the reason that the same was not prepared and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Stonesifer v. KilburnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Banta v. SillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Felt v. CookUtah Supreme Court · 1906
- Cameron v. Arcata & Mad River RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Morgan v. Oregon Short Line RailroadUtah Supreme Court · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.