We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
39
In Cook vs. Cook, 56 W. Va., 5, it was held as follows (quoting from syllabus):
"A false representation of quantity of land not relied upon by the purchaser and not operating to induce him to purcha'^e will give him no relief for deficiency, but when such false representation is proven presumably it does so operate unless it otherwise appears/'
Thus in Wilson vs. Carpenter, 91 Va., 183, the Court, in speaking of a misrepresentation made, said of the wrongdoer:
" When the seller has made a false representation, which, from its nature, might misltiad the buyer to enter into the contract on the faith of it, it will be inferred that the buyer was induced thereto to contiact, and it does not rest with him to show that he in fact relied upon the representation."
That the representations so made were material will appear from an examination of ihe evidence, which shows that the fact that the manufacturing licensees as well as the Edison Company, which was also a manufacturer, would have been seriously damaged if a new license had been issued to the Melies Company after Mr. Lewis had become inteiested therein.
It will be recalled that the three classes of persons interested in the business in question were, first, manufacturers; second. Exchanges, or those to whom films were sold or leased by the manufacturers; and third, the exhibitois to the public, to whom the films were sublet by tlie Exchanges. Experience had taught the manufacturing licensees that undue advantage resulted if there was any unity of interest between a manufactuiing licensee and an Exchange, for such licensee would necessarily be favored in orders made by the Exchanges interested in Ihe business of such manufacturing licensee. The necessary result from such a relationship would be an undue advantage in competition between the various manufactuiing licensees. It had been the policy of the licensees for some time prior to September 18th, and at all times since then, to preclude any unity of interest of a licensee with an Exchange, and in the few cases prior