Huffstetter v. Buzett
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Bay, J.
Complaint by appellee on a note. Answer, that the note was given for a one-half interest in a certain lot of drugs and medicines and drug store, and that at the time of the purchase the appellee, to induce the appellant to buy, made certain false and fraudulent representations relating ■to the value, quantity, and quality of said articles, and the *294 amount and value of the business and custom enjoyed by said store; that the value of said goods was stated to be thirty-five hundred dollars, when, in truth, the appellee well knew it was not to exceed one thousand dollars; that it required a knowledge of drugs and medicines to determine their value; this knowledge the appellee well knew the appellant did not possess, and appellant well knew that appellee was well informed on this subject, and he relied upon the statement of appellee, as appellee well knew and intended he should: The same averments are made in regard to. the quality of the drugs and the extent of the business custom of the store. It is averred, that a-sum largely in excess1 of the actual value of the interest purchased has been already paid to the appellee. A demurrer was sustained to the answer. This was error. The answer was a full and complete defense to the action.
F. Wilson, A. O. Voris, and W. Farrell, for appellant. T. L. Collins, T. B. BusJdrk, and J. R. BusJdrk, for appellee.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the answer. Costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.