Wilson v. Hundley
Citations
- 96 Va. 96
- 30 S.E. 492
- 1898 Va. LEXIS 65
Syllabus
<p>1. Contracts&emdash;Fraud in the Procurement&emdash;Bights and Bemedies of the ¡Defrauded Party.&emdash;A contract induced by fraud is not void, but voidable only, at the option of the party defrauded. Upon discovery of the fraud, he may, as a general rule, either elect to rescind the contract, if he can restore what he has received in the same state or condition in which he received it, and recover back the consideration, or, if he has not paid or given anything, repudiate the contract, and rely, when sued, upon the fraud as a complete defence ; or he may elect to retain what he has received under the contract, and sue to recover damages for the injury he has sustained from the deceit. By the latter course he, in effect, affirms the contract, but does not waive or release his claim for damages arising from the fraud collateral thereto.</p> <p>2. Contracts&emdash;Fraud in the Procurement&emdash;Election to Bescind or Affirm.&emdash; If a party who has been defrauded in the procurement of a contract, elect, on discovery of the fraud, to affirm the contract, his election is final and conclusive. He has but one election to rescind, and, having once elected to affirm the contract, he cannot thereafter disaffirm.</p> <p>3. Contracts&emdash;Fraud in the Procurement&emdash;Election to Affirm&emdash;Subsequent Discovery of New Incidents im, the Fraud&emdash;Bescission.&emdash;A party who has elected to affirm a contract which was voidable for fraud in its procurement cannot afterwards elect to rescind it upon the subsequent discovery of new incidents in the fraud. Knowledge of the fraud puts the party defrauded to his election. Subsequent discovery of new incidents of the fraud simply confirms the previous knowledge, and does not confer a new right to rescind.</p> <p>4. Stock Subscriptions&emdash;Fictitious Subscribers&emdash;Liability of&emdash;Effect on Bona Fide Subscriptions.&emdash;Fictitious or colorable subscriptions to stock, made and used with intent to induce o
Judges: Biely
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
19 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Lloyd v. SmithSupreme Court of Virginia· 1928-03-22· cited 74×
- Reynolds Jamaica Mines, Ltd. v. La Societe Navale CaennaiseFourth Circuit· 1956-12-17· cited 41×
- Poe v. VossSupreme Court of Virginia· 1955-03-07· cited 37×
- CGI Federal Inc. v. FCi Federal, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia· 2018-06-07· cited 33×
- Millboro Lumber Co. v. Augusta Wood Products Corp.Supreme Court of Virginia· 1924-11-13· cited 16×
- McLeskey v. Ocean Park Investors, Ltd.Supreme Court of Virginia· 1991-06-07· cited 13×
- City of Norfolk v. StephensonSupreme Court of Virginia· 1946-06-10· cited 13×
- Caribbean Steamship Company v. La Societe Navale CaennaiseE.D. Virginia· 1956-04-12· cited 11×
- New York Life Insurance v. KennedySupreme Court of Virginia· 1926-11-18· cited 10×
- Witter v. TorbettW.D. Virginia· 1984-12-28· cited 6×
- United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. South Atlantic Dry Dock Co.Fifth Circuit· 1924-06-12· cited 6×
- O'Dell v. Appalachian Hotel Corp.Supreme Court of Virginia· 1929-09-19· cited 5×
- Rhoades v. Banking, Trust & Mortgage Co.Supreme Court of Virginia· 1919-06-12· cited 3×
- Virginia-Carolina Rubber Co. v. FlanaganSupreme Court of Virginia· 1928-03-22· cited 2×
- United Leasing Corp. v. Resource BankVirginia Circuit Court· 2001-12-04· cited 2×
- Tucker v. Ford Motor Co.Fairfax County Circuit Court· 2007-02-01· cited 1×
- Chamberlaine v. Marsh's AdministratorSupreme Court of Virginia· 1819-02-13
- Espinosa v. Community Physicians, Inc.Virginia Beach County Circuit Court· 1983-01-21
- Mule-Hide Products Co., Inc. v. Midlantic Builders VA, LLCCourt of Appeals of Virginia· 2026-01-06
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.