Wardell v. Fosdick & Davis

New York Supreme Court

Wardell v. Fosdick & Davis

13 Johns. 325

New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1816·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence is sufficient to support the allegation of fraud against both the defendants, and there appears no legal ‘objection to this form of action. Where the party hhs been induced, by such a fraudulent representation, t® [328]*328pay his money, and accept a dééd, it is immaterial whether any, or what, cqvenánts are.contained In the.deed, .The purchaser so, defrauded, has’a right to treat the .deed as: a nullity, and may maintain An- action on the cá.sé for. the deceit. '.(Frost v. Raymond, 2 Caines' Rep. 193. Bostwick v. Lewis, 1 Day, 250. Com. Dig. Action on the Case for Deceit, (A. 8.)

-judgment’fot the,plaintiff.

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

Per Curiam.

The evidence is sufficient to support the allegation of fraud against both the defendants, and there appears no legal ‘objection to this form of action. Where the party hhs been induced, by such a fraudulent representation, t® [328]*328pay his money, and accept a dééd, it is immaterial whether any, or what, cqvenánts are.contained In the.deed, .The purchaser so, defrauded, has’a right to treat the .deed as: a nullity, and may maintain An- action on the cá.sé for. the deceit. '.(Frost v. Raymond, 2 Caines' Rep. 193. Bostwick v. Lewis, 1 Day, 250. Com. Dig. Action on the Case for Deceit, (A. 8.)

-judgment’fot the,plaintiff.

Wardell v. Fosdick & Davis, 13 Johns. 325 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1816).

Pincite

13 Johns. 325 (Wardell v. Fosdick & Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related