Tupelo Spindle Company, Inc. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company

Fifth Circuit

Tupelo Spindle Company, Inc. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company

339 F.2d 592, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3534

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 18, 1964

Docket21061_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 339 F.2d 592 (Tupelo Spindle Company, Inc. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tupelo Spindle Company, Inc. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 339 F.2d 592, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3534 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal seeks a reversal of a judgment of the trial court, sitting without, a jury, finding for the appellee in an. action for fraud in the inducement of a. contract and for rescission of the contract for a material breach thereof, and', on the ground of lack of consideration.

As is frequently the custom of this Court in a diversity case, and particularly one in which the errors complained of are errors in fact findings and. conclusions based thereon by the trial, court, we find it unnecessary to elaborate-on the fact issues. We have carefully-considered the findings of fact by the-trial court and conclude without hesitation that there is substantial evidence-on the record to sustain the essential findings on which the trial court determined that the contract between the parties was not fraudulently induced; that, the plaintiff was not damaged by a fraudulent breach of a confidential relationship ; that the appellee was not guilty of' a material breach of contract; and finally, that there was adequate consideration-to support the contract.

The rule of law in Mississippi,, as elsewhere, is that fraud must be-proved by clear and convincing evidence, Osborn v. Thomas, 221 Miss. 682, 74 So. 2d 757. It is thus a peculiarly heavy-burden that is placed upon an appellant, who seeks a reversal of a finding by a trial court of the absence of fraud in a. *593 business transaction, when a finding of fraud must be based on inferences to be drawn from a course of conduct between the parties. We do not need to determine whether the evidence adduced by the appellant before the trial court would have warranted a finding by the trial court that the appellee had induced the appellant to surrender its patent rights and enter into the contract by fraudulent representations. We are convinced that the contrary inference was one that the trial court was permitted to make from the evidence.

The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal seeks a reversal of a judgment of the trial court, sitting without, a jury, finding for the appellee in an. action for fraud in the inducement of a. contract and for rescission of the contract for a material breach thereof, and', on the ground of lack of consideration.

As is frequently the custom of this Court in a diversity case, and particularly one in which the errors complained of are errors in fact findings and. conclusions based thereon by the trial, court, we find it unnecessary to elaborate-on the fact issues. We have carefully-considered the findings of fact by the-trial court and conclude without hesitation that there is substantial evidence-on the record to sustain the essential findings on which the trial court determined that the contract between the parties was not fraudulently induced; that, the plaintiff was not damaged by a fraudulent breach of a confidential relationship ; that the appellee was not guilty of' a material breach of contract; and finally, that there was adequate consideration-to support the contract.

The rule of law in Mississippi,, as elsewhere, is that fraud must be-proved by clear and convincing evidence, Osborn v. Thomas, 221 Miss. 682, 74 So. 2d 757. It is thus a peculiarly heavy-burden that is placed upon an appellant, who seeks a reversal of a finding by a trial court of the absence of fraud in a. *593 business transaction, when a finding of fraud must be based on inferences to be drawn from a course of conduct between the parties. We do not need to determine whether the evidence adduced by the appellant before the trial court would have warranted a finding by the trial court that the appellee had induced the appellant to surrender its patent rights and enter into the contract by fraudulent representations. We are convinced that the contrary inference was one that the trial court was permitted to make from the evidence.

The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 F.2d 592, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tupelo-spindle-company-inc-v-allis-chalmers-manufacturing-company-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack