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

Record Details:

Title:
Brief for appellees motion picture patents company and Edison manufacturing company
Date:
1913
Publisher:
New York : The Evening Post Job Printing Office
Volume:
Brief for appellees motion picture patents company and Edison manufacturing company
Leaf #:
00050
Language:
English
Collection:
Books and Government & Law
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
{"Media History Digital Library","Richard Koszarski",Domitor}
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
November 16, 2023
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.

46 IV. One of the defenses pleaded in the answei* being* the false representations of liOd^e as an inducement to g-et the Edison C j mpany to consent to the transfer of the licenses, parol evidence of these representations is admissible. It would seem elementary that when the defense is that a party was induced to entei into a written agreement by means of fraudulent misrepresentation, parol evidence of the alleged untruthful statements are always admissible. Were the rule otherwise, fraud in the vast majority of cases could never be pioven. A person contemplating a fraud does not usually provide his victim with written evidence of the fraud, or embody it in the written contract. Parol evidence is always admissible to show fraud IN obtaining the execution of a written agreement. Neiu York Exchange vs. De Wolf, 31 N. Y., 273, 283; Southard vs. Pinckney, 5 Abb. New Cases, 184, 196; Southard vs. Benner, 72 N. Y., 424, 451; Willink vs. Vanderveer, 1 Barb., 599, 608; Voisin vs. Commercial, etc., Co., 62 Hun, 4, 10; Korneman vs. Brewing Co., 4 Misc., 209, 301; Chasers Stephen^s Dig. of the Law of Evidence (2nd Ed.), 220. The rule is summed up in Jones on Evidence, sec. 434, as follows: " Parol evidence may be received to prove that a conveyance or other contract has been obtained by fraud."