Bayard v. Malcolm

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Bayard v. Malcolm

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 392

CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

DecidedJuly 1, 1799

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 392 (Bayard v. Malcolm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bayard v. Malcolm, 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 392 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court held, (Livingston, J., dissentiente,)that in action for a deceit in the sale of a Newspaper establishment, by false representations of its condition, &c., the want of anal-legation of a fraudulent misrepresentation or a scienter in the declaration, was not helped by verdict; and the judgment was accordingly arrested by the S. Ct. But

The Court of Errors held, on the other hand, that the allegation in the declaration—“ and so the said S. B. says that he by reason of the said affirmation of the said R. M. Malcolm,” (stating the false representation,) “ was falsely and fraudulently deceivedf was sufficient, at least after verdict, and reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Supreme Court held, (Livingston, J., dissentiente,)that in action for a deceit in the sale of a Newspaper establishment, by false representations of its condition, &c., the want of anal-legation of a fraudulent misrepresentation or a scienter in the declaration, was not helped by verdict; and the judgment was accordingly arrested by the S. Ct. But

The Court of Errors held, on the other hand, that the allegation in the declaration—“ and so the said S. B. says that he by reason of the said affirmation of the said R. M. Malcolm,” (stating the false representation,) “ was falsely and fraudulently deceivedf was sufficient, at least after verdict, and reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bayard-v-malcolm-nycterr-1799.