Philadelphia Bourse v. Downing

Citations

• 6 Pa. Super. 590
• 1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 205

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Rescission of — Slock subscription — Misrepresentation.</p> <p>Benefits to be derived from the founding- of an institution to the stock of which the defendant was invited to subscribe, may or may not result as alleged, but disappointment as to the result cannot be set up in defense to a suit to recover a subscription to stock when the subscriber had quite as good opportunities of judging as the person who solicited and secured the subscription.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Insufficient affidavit — Contract—Misrepresentation.</p> <p>An affidavit is insufficient, which, setting up two distinct representations as inducing a subscription to stock of a corporation, is indefinite in its allegations as to which is false; it is insufficient moreover, when alleging mere expressions of opinion, it fails to aver a distinct statement of material fact known to the solicitor and unknown to the subscriber, which if false would justify a rescission of the contract.</p>