Turner v. Ward

154 U.S. 618, 14 S. Ct. 1179, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1435
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 14, 1876
DocketNo. 129
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 154 U.S. 618 (Turner v. Ward) 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
Turner v. Ward, 154 U.S. 618, 14 S. Ct. 1179, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1435 (1876).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case presents for our consideration little else than a question of fact. The plaintiffs charge in substance that they were induced by false representations to sell the defendants certain goods, and asked to have the contract of sale rescinded, and their goods restored. The testimony is all embraced in the depositions of one of the plaintiffs and one of the defendants and an agreed statement. There is some discrepancy between the statements of [619]*619the two witnesses, but it is apparent from the testimony of the defendant, who made the representations complained of, that he himself had been deceived in respect to the pecuniary condition of his firm. It would be but natural, therefore, that he should mislead the plaintiffs. He supposed the firm had stock on hand to the amount of twenty or twenty-five thousand dollars, and owed from five to eight thousand. According to his own statement, he so told the plaintiff. In point of fact, he was mistaken, and his statement was untrue. The firm was largely in debt, and in less than sixty days it failed and made an assignment. Before this, however, it executed two chattel mortgages upon the stock, each purporting upon its face to secure the payment of ten thousand dollars, though it appears that the amount actually owing to . the mortgagees was not so much.

Mr. Charles P. Crosby, Mr. J. M. Carlisle and Mr. J. D. McPherson for appellants. Mr. Ashley Pond and Mr. Henry B. Brown for appellees.

The representations proven are not in the precise language of those averred in the bill, but they are of the same general character, and in our opinion, sufficient to justify the decree rendered in the court below, and it is, therefore, Affirmed.

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

Related

Sternberg v. American Snuff Co.
69 F.2d 307 (Eighth Circuit, 1934)
Taylor v. Burr Printing Co.
26 F.2d 331 (Second Circuit, 1928)
Manly v. Ohio Shoe Co.
25 F.2d 384 (Fourth Circuit, 1928)
Gardiner v. Equitable Office Bldg. Corp.
294 F. 496 (Second Circuit, 1923)
Independent Harvester Co. v. Tinsman
253 F. 935 (Seventh Circuit, 1918)
In re Hunter-Rand Co.
241 F. 175 (E.D. North Carolina, 1917)
City of Omaha v. Venner
243 F. 107 (Eighth Circuit, 1917)
Putnam v. United States Trust Co.
111 N.E. 969 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Canadian Agency, Ltd. v. Assets Realization Co.
165 A.D. 96 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)
In re J. S. Appel Suit & Cloak Co.
198 F. 322 (D. Colorado, 1912)
Joslyn v. Cadillac Automobile Co.
177 F. 863 (Sixth Circuit, 1910)
William Openhym & Sons v. Blake
157 F. 536 (Eighth Circuit, 1907)
Dorsey v. Watkins
151 F. 340 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1907)
In re J. S. Patterson & Co.
125 F. 562 (N.D. Texas, 1903)
Peninsular Stove Co. v. Mitchell
117 F. 774 (D. Indiana, 1902)
Dayton v. American Steel Barge Co.
76 A.D. 454 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)
In re Weil
111 F. 897 (S.D. New York, 1901)
Dayton v. American Steel Barge Co.
36 Misc. 223 (New York Supreme Court, 1901)
In re Epstein
109 F. 874 (W.D. Arkansas, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
154 U.S. 618, 14 S. Ct. 1179, 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-ward-scotus-1876.