Bruce v. Loeb

Citations

• 78 Pa. Super. 22
• 1921 Pa. Super. LEXIS 333

Syllabus

<p>Deceit — Sale of real property — Misrepresentations—Evidence— Sufficiency — Court and jury — Function.</p> <p>An action in trespass, for deceit in procuring a contract by false representations, is not governed by the rules of evidence which obtain in equity proceedings looking to the modification of reformation of a contract.</p> <p>Whether the testimony of a witness is full, clear and explicit, is primarily a question for the court, but when it meets these requirements, although it is not supported by other witnesses, it is for the jury to determine whether it should carry conviction to the mind.</p> <p>Testimony of the plaintiff that he was taken upon the ground by one of the defendants, and shown the actual location of certain lots, which he thereupon agreed to buy, and that he later learned that his contract or agreement was for other less desirable lots, whereupon he promptly offered to surrender the contract, and demanded the return of his money, was sufficient to take the case to the jury in an action in trespass in the nature of an action for deceit.</p> <p>In a ease where a question of fact has been properly presented to the jury for determination, and the resulting verdict has the effect of allowing the plaintiff to recover all the money paid by him on account of the contract, as well as to retain the benefits thereof, the situation can be remedied by the power of the court to control the execution by requiring the plaintiff to release any right acquired by the contract.</p>