Houghton v. Nash

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Houghton v. Nash

64 Me. 477

DecidedJuly 1, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 64 Me. 477 (Houghton v. Nash) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Houghton v. Nash, 64 Me. 477 (Me. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Diokerson, J.

The plaintiffs brought their action of replevin for the goods obtained of them through alleged fraudulent representations, in respect to the vendee’s solvency without returning his order on a third party for money given for the goods when they were delivered. The law is too well settled*to need the citation of authorities, that in order to rescind such a contract the vender must restore the vendee to his former condition by returning the consideration. The plaintiffs not having done this cannot maintain this action. Exceptions overruled.

Appleton, C. J., Walton, Barrows, Virgin and Peters, JJ., concurred.

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

Diokerson, J.

The plaintiffs brought their action of replevin for the goods obtained of them through alleged fraudulent representations, in respect to the vendee’s solvency without returning his order on a third party for money given for the goods when they were delivered. The law is too well settled*to need the citation of authorities, that in order to rescind such a contract the vender must restore the vendee to his former condition by returning the consideration. The plaintiffs not having done this cannot maintain this action. Exceptions overruled.

Appleton, C. J., Walton, Barrows, Virgin and Peters, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Me. 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houghton-v-nash-me-1874.