Roome v. Jennings

23 N.Y.S. 666, 3 Misc. 413, 1893 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 287
CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo
DecidedMay 1, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 N.Y.S. 666 (Roome v. Jennings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Roome v. Jennings, 23 N.Y.S. 666, 3 Misc. 413, 1893 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 287 (superctny 1893).

Opinion

FREEDMAN, J.

The complaint does not state a cause of action for fraud or deceit, for fraud or deceit without damage is not actionable. The damages sought to be recovered áre shown to have resulted, not from the fraud or deceit by means of which the plaintiffs were induced to enter into the executory contract of sale, but from their own refusal to carry out the said contract and their rescission of it. They were justified in such refusal and rescission. It appears, however, that, if they had not so refused and rescinded, no damage would have been sustained, for the fall in the market price had then already taken place, and the defendants were ready and willing, and presumably able, to pay the contract price. The plaintiffs, by thus making an election which they had an undoubted right to make, brought about their own loss. The learned judge below was therefore correct in holding that, upon the facts set out in the complaint, the plaintiffs have but a technical cause of action, which is for the breach of the duty that the defendants as brokers Owed to the plaintiffs, and that in this action, as it is set forth, the plaintiffs are entitled to nominal damages only. The demurrer to the complaint having been overruled, and the damages on the facts stated' in the complaint being, as matter of law, nominal, the court could proceed at once to award the damages; and the defendants’ right to costs in such a case being statutory, under section 3229 of the Code,1 the judgment was properly entered under sections 1021 and 1222 of the Code.2 If the plaintiffs can [669]*669show a different state of facts, and desire so to do, their remedy is by motion for leave to amend their complaint.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Roome v. Jennings
25 N.Y.S. 461 (Superior Court of New York, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 N.Y.S. 666, 3 Misc. 413, 1893 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roome-v-jennings-superctny-1893.