Skip to main content
· 9/19/1910

Simons v. Cissna

Citations

  • 60 Wash. 141
  • 110 P. 1011
  • 1910 Wash. LEXIS 1019

Syllabus

<p>Fraud — Misrepresentation—Solvency—Liability. General misrepresentations as to the solvency of a corporation not confined to any specific work under a contract, renders the defendant liable to plaintiff for loss thereby sustained in the performance of the contract, including loss on work outside the contract which the parties thereto treated as being within the contract.</p> <p>Same — Solvency—Evidence—Sufficiency. The evidence is sufficient to show the insolvency of a corporation, where but ¡?5,000 of its capital stock was paid in, all of which was used to make an initial payment on a real estate contract, and it had no title or property with which to meet its obligations.</p> <p>Same — Instructions. An instruction in an action for misrepresenting the solvency of a corporation, correctly stating the rule of liability, is not prejudicially erroneous by reason of the addition of the clause that a person making such representations cannot be heard to say that he was a person upon whom no reliance should have been placed.</p> <p>Same. In an action for misrepresenting the solvency of a company, whether the statement of defendant that plaintiff “could not lose by contracting” with the company was a mere opinion and not actionable, depends upon the context and other representations made at the time respecting the solvency of that company; and it is therefore proper to refuse to instruct that it was a mere opinion or prediction.</p> <p>Same — Insolvency—Evidence—Admissibility. In an action for misrepresenting the solvency of a mill company, court proceedings begun against the company for the recovery of the land on which the mill was situated, afterwards settled by removal of the mill and surrender of the land, in which action the defendant represented the company, are admissible on the question of the solvency of the company, and defendant’s knowledge and connection with its business affairs.</p> <p>Same. Evidence that the husband of a stockholder in a corporation owns

Judges: Fullerton

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.