Brief for appellees motion picture patents company and Edison manufacturing company (1913)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

43 to sell property to him, and such other, without negligence, relying upon such representations, make the sale, he can, upon discovering the truth, rescind the transaction and recover back his property, saving the rights of bona fide purchasers or incumbrancers thereof in the meantime. To obtain property by false lepresentations in the manner indicated, constitutes a substantive, actionable wrong, witiiout regard to whether the vendee does or does not intend to pay for the subject of the purchase. If a person purchases property of another witli intent not to pay for the same, the vendee may rescind the sale and recover back the subject thereof, as in the case of the circumstances first stated. False representations to obtain property are not a necessaiy element to make a complete cause of action under the circumstances covered by the second proposition, nor is intent not to pay essential to a complete cause of action under the circumstances covered by the second proposition. The former is complete by the concurrence of false re|)resentations of material facts, regarding which the falsifier knows or ought to know the truth, for the purpose of inducing a sale of property to him, and the consummated contract of sale, the seller relying upon such false representations. In such ciicumstances the law will not permit the wrongdoer to profit by his fraud if tlie wronged party othei wise elect, saving the rights of innocent third persons. The latter is complete by the purchase of pro|)erty, the transaction being characterized by a seciet, definitely formed intent on the part of the purchasernever to pay for the subject of the purchase." In Brison vs. Brison, 17 Pac, 689, it was said: We think there was actual fraud. As above stated, the complaint shows that a parol promise, U{)on which the jjlaintiff relied, was false, and 'in bad faith' and 'made with intent to deceive,' the construction which we think must be given to this averment is, that t he promise was made without any intentiovi of pei forming it. This is a wellrecognized species of fraud. See Bigelow on Fraud, Ed. 1H88. 484: Sandfoss vs. Jones, 35 Cal., 481, 482 * * * It is to be observed of this ground that the essence of the fraud is the existence of an