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.

45 The above exception to the general rule is not confined to cases where the misrepresentation consists in the seciet intention not to pay, but is applifd to any and every case where there is a periet iiittntion to do olheiwis-e than agi'eed to be done. Thus, in Goodivm vs. Home, 60 N. H., 48(5, it was said: "Ordinarily false promises are not fraudulent, nor evidence of fraud, and only false lepresentation of past or existing facts aie actionable, or can be made the ground of defense. But when a promise is made with no intention of peiformance for the very purpose of accomplishing a fraud it is a most apt and effectual means to that end, and the victim has a remedy by action or defense." See also the following cases: Chicago, T. & M. C. Ry. Co. vs. Titterington, ly S. W., 472. Touchstone vs. Staggs, S. W., 18<J (Court of Civil Appeals, Texas). Nelson vs. Shelby, etc., 11 So., 095, 701. Alhitz vs. Minneapolis & P. Ry. Co., 42 N. W., 394. National Bank vs. Mackey (Couit of Appeals, Kan.), 49 Pac, 324. Newell vs. Neiuelt, 14 Kan., 202. Wilson vs. Egglestori, 27 Mich., 257. Carrigan vs. Hull, 5 Vt., 22. As we have elsewhere pointed out, the evidence shows that although Lodge stated to Dyer on September 18, 1908, that he had sold only ^700 of stock to the exchanges he had in fact at that time arranged to sell 350 shares to Max Lewis, and his representations wer-e false as to an existing state of affairs. But, for the sake of argument, treating his representation and promise as relating solely to the future, we submit that the authorities cited above abundantly establish the defendant's tight to treat the representation as fr-audulerit, because made with no intention of adhering to his promise.