Johansson v. Stephanson

Supreme Court

Johansson v. Stephanson

154 U.S. 625, 14 S. Ct. 1180, 1877 U.S. LEXIS 1740

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 9, 1877

DocketNo. 194

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 154 U.S. 625 (Johansson v. Stephanson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johansson v. Stephanson, 154 U.S. 625, 14 S. Ct. 1180, 1877 U.S. LEXIS 1740 (1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

We have carefully examined the voluminous record in this case, and while it is possible that the appellee took advantage of the inexperience of the appellant, and of his ignorance of the country in which he was, to secure an advantageous bargain, the evidence fails to show such fraud or misrepresentation as would justify us, under the established rules of equity jurisprudence by which our judgment must be governed, in decreeing a rescission of the contract, executed as it has been and acted upon by the parties. Many of the representations complained of are clearly nothing more than expressions of opinion. The appellant was taken to and shown the property before the bargain was concluded. The only fact about which there seems really to have been an error in statement was as to the boundary of the land on the river, and if that had been correctly described we do not think it would have changed the conduct of the parties. As to the overflow of the land and the health of the locality, the truth seems to have been stated in respect to the past and an opinion only given as to the probabilities in the future. We must, therefore, affirm the decree.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

We have carefully examined the voluminous record in this case, and while it is possible that the appellee took advantage of the inexperience of the appellant, and of his ignorance of the country in which he was, to secure an advantageous bargain, the evidence fails to show such fraud or misrepresentation as would justify us, under the established rules of equity jurisprudence by which our judgment must be governed, in decreeing a rescission of the contract, executed as it has been and acted upon by the parties. Many of the representations complained of are clearly nothing more than expressions of opinion. The appellant was taken to and shown the property before the bargain was concluded. The only fact about which there seems really to have been an error in statement was as to the boundary of the land on the river, and if that had been correctly described we do not think it would have changed the conduct of the parties. As to the overflow of the land and the health of the locality, the truth seems to have been stated in respect to the past and an opinion only given as to the probabilities in the future. We must, therefore, affirm the decree.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 U.S. 625, 14 S. Ct. 1180, 1877 U.S. LEXIS 1740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johansson-v-stephanson-scotus-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack