Buresh v. Seymour

Appellate Court of Illinois

Buresh v. Seymour

187 Ill. App. 295

Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided June 15, 1914·No. Gen. No. 19,635·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Fraud, § 113*—proof by circumstantial evidence. Fraud may be proved by circumstantial evidence as well as direct evidence; but there must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence inculpatory facts from which a legitimate inference of fraudulent intent may be drawn. 3. Fraud, § 26*—when misrepresentations concerning a business not actionable. Misrepresentations as to value, probable future business or earnings are not actionable.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Fraud, § 113*—proof by circumstantial evidence. Fraud may be proved by circumstantial evidence as well as direct evidence; but there must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence inculpatory facts from which a legitimate inference of fraudulent intent may be drawn. 3. Fraud, § 26*—when misrepresentations concerning a business not actionable. Misrepresentations as to value, probable future business or earnings are not actionable.

Buresh v. Seymour, 187 Ill. App. 295 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

187 Ill. App. 295 (Buresh v. Seymour) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related