Peerless Mills, Inc. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, and Third-Party v. Hertz, Warner & Co., a Partnership, Third-Party

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• plaintiff loaned money to his son-in-law, a securities broker,- who was allegedly induced by fraud to invest the money in a partnership with deteriorating financial prospects
• “[T]here is no showing that the appellees intended that Cohn convey their representations to the Fines.” (emphasis added)
• for fraud claim based on indirect reliance, defendant must have made the misrepresentation “for the purpose of having it repeated in terms or communicated in substance to the [plaintiff]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).