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.

u intent, at the time of the promise, not to perfoi"m it. But for such event there would be no actual fraud * * * But if an evil intent existed, there was actual fraud, and so far as this ground is concerned it is immaterial whether theie wao a confidential relation or not. Christy vs. Sill, 95 Pa. St., 387." See also American Hosiery Co. vs. Baker, 18 Ohio C. C. R., 604. Swift vs. Bounds, 61 Am. St. Rep., 7S)l (19 R. I., 527). Wilson vs. Nichols, 72 Conn., 173. In Garry vs. Garry, 187 Mass., 6.^ it was held that a representation that, upon a certain sale of property, "one half of thi' purchase money was to go" in a certain way, was not demurrable, thonu;!! it was objected that the representation was not that an existing fact. This case is a complete answer to the reasoning in appellant's brief, pp. 91, 92, by which it is sought to distinguish Rogers vs. Virginia Carolina Chemical Co. {supra). Again, it has repeatedly held an actionable deceit for one to purchase goods with the seciet intention never to pay for them. Whitten vs. Filzwater, 129 N. Y., 626. Schloss vs. Feltiis, 96 Mich., 619; 36 L. R. A., 161. Rowley vs. Bigelow, 12 Pick., 307. Burr ill vs. Stevens, 73 Me., 395. The cases are legion that the purchase of property with secret intent not to pay tlieiefor constitutes fiaud; thus, in 20 Cyc, page 66, is the following: ''Where a sale of property is induced by false representations of the purchaser, accompanied by a preconceived design not to pay, and by the accomplishment of the frauil the seller is deprived of the property and its |)iice, the purchaser is liable in an action for deceit."