Legal Opinion

Fairbanks Morse & Co. v. Dees

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 27, 1929No. 1 Div. 557PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.

A defrauded purchaser must elect whether he will affirm the fraudulent transaction or rescind it. The right to sue for deceit is based upon the assumption that the contract is to stand (Williston on Sales, § 648; Coleman v. Night Commander Lighting Co., 218 Ala. 196, 118 So. 377; Thompson v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 214 Ala. 452, 108 So. 69), so that the purchaser need not restore the property to the seller as a condition to its prosecution (2 Williston on Sales, § 646; Maxwell v. Sherman, 172 Ala. 626, 55 So. 520; Byars v. Sanders, 215 Ala. 561, 112 So. 127; Kilby L. & M. Works v. Lacey, 12 Ala.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Alabama MacHinery & Supply Co. v. CaffeySupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  2. Caffey v. Alabama MacHinery & Supply Co.Alabama Court of Appeals · 1922
  3. Lancaster v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  4. Rochester-Hall Drug Co. v. BowdenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  5. Maxwell v. ShermanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Mobile Pure Milk Co. v. ColemanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
  2. Deupree v. ButnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1988
  3. Dickinson v. Land Developers Const. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2003
  4. Stallings v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1946
  5. Southern Building & Loan Ass'n v. BryantSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API