Nixon & Co. v. Carson
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.
Beok, J.
fraudulent tfoií^made summation' of contract. — The demurrer should have been overruled. False and fraudulent representations as to the subject matter of a contract, relied upon by the other party, which operated as an inducement thereto, will defeat recovery by the guilty party. The fact that the frau¿ was perpetrated prior to the execution of the contract does not change the rule. Indeed to bring a case within the rule the fraud, of necessity, must have been perpetrated before the consummation of the contract, otherwise it could not have operated as an inducement thereto. It was entirely competent to establish the fraudulent and false representations by extrinsic parol evidence. These principles are elementary and do not demand for their support the citation of authorities. But see 2 Parsons on Contracts, p. 66, and Chap. 3, Sec. 12 and notes, 1 Greenleaf’s Ev., Sec. 284. Rohrabacher v. Ware, Sept. Term, 1873.
The fraudulent representations are sufficiently averred in the answer.
Beversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 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.