Skip to main content
· 11/11/1887

Hutchinson Furnace & Smoke Consuming Co. v. Lyford

Citations

  • 123 Ill. 300
  • 13 N.E. 844
  • 1887 Ill. LEXIS 1041

Syllabus

<p>1. Fraud and deceit—misrepresentations by a vendor. In an action by the purchaser of shares of stock in a corporation, to recover damages, on the ground of fraudulent representations by the president of the company, the alleged misrepresentations must be proved, and the party making them must have been the duly authorized agent of the defendant company, and he must have known the representations to have been false when made, and they must have been such that a man of ordinary prudence would have relied on them, and the plaintiff must have, in fact, relied on them, and been thereby induced to make the purchase.</p> <p>2. In such a case, an instruction asked by the defendant, to the effect that a vendor has the right to exalt the value of his own property to as high a point as his purchaser’s credulity will bear, and mere boastful assertions, or even highly exaggerated descriptions, do not amount to fraudulent representations or deceit in such case, which is not applicable to the facts, may properly be refused.</p> <p>3. Instruction— copying from language of cov/rt in its opinion. It is not a wise practice, on the trial of a case, to select some expression of this court in some other case, and formulate it into an instruction; nor is it error to refuse such an instruction when it is apparent that its language is not applicable to the facts of the case being tried.</p>

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.