Patton v. Tidwell

Decided November 9, 1920

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1920-11-09

M. Miller, Judge. Action by Zada Tidwell against Luther Patton for damages for deceit in the sale of a patent. The death of plaintiff was suggested, and the cause revived in the appellate court in the name of her administrator. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1938

2 state decisions

Relies on Patton v. Tidwell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed in response to the mandate of the Supreme Court · Decided 1920-11-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Under the decision of the Supreme Court in Ex parte Phelan Tidwell, Administrator, etc., 87 So. 626 (petition for certiorari, 2d Div. 736), the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.

¶2Affirmed.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Status

Disposition: Affirmed in response to the mandate of the Supreme Court

Case posture

Disposition: Affirmed in response to the mandate of the Supreme Court.
Posture: Appeal from Circuit Court, Bibb County; B.M. Miller, Judge. Action by Zada Tidwell against Luther Patton for damages for deceit in the sale of a patent. The death of plaintiff was suggested, and the cause revived in the appellate court in the name of her administrator. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. Affirmed in response to the mandate of the Supreme Court. The following counts of the complaint are referred to: (1) The plaintiff claims of the defendant $300 and lawful interest thereon from February 15, 1918, damages for deceit in the sale by the defendant to the plaintiff of a one-hundredth interest in and to a weevil machine patent, and defendant for the purpose of making such sale to plaintiff represented to plaintiff at the time of such sale that he would deliver at least one of the machines, for which letters patent had been issued to him, to the government agricultural demonstration agent in each county in Alabama in the early spring of 1918; that he had completed arrangements to place such machines on the general market for sale the early spring of 1918; and that defendant guaranteed that a big dividend would be paid on said one-hundredth interest the year 1918; whereupon the plaintiff on account of such representation made by defendant to deceive plaintiff and believing same to be true, but which was wholly untrue and known by the defendant at the time to be untrue, plaintiff purchased said one-hundredth interest the said sale of which defendant made to plaintiff by means of such untrue representations to the damage of the plaintiff as aforesaid. (2) The plaintiff claims of the defendant $300 and lawful interest thereon from February 15, 1918, damages for deceit in the sale by the defendant to the plaintiff of a one-hundredth interest in and to a weevil machine patent, and defendant for the purpose of making such sale to plaintiff represented to plaintiff at the time of such sale that he had arranged to put such machines for which said letters patent had been issued on the general market for sale during the early spring of 1918, and would deliver at least one of the machines, for which said letters patent had been issued to him, to the government agricultural demonstration agent in each county in Alabama in the early spring of 1918; that the defendant would sell and deliver such machines during the spring of 1918; and that defendant guaranteed that a big dividend would be paid plaintiff on said one-hundredth interest the year 1918; whereupon the plaintiff on account of such representations and believing same to be true, but which were wholly untrue and known by the defendant at the time to be untrue, plaintiff purchased said one-hundredth interest the said sale of which defendant made to plaintiff by means of such untrue representations, and paid defendant therefor on, to wit, February 15, 1918, $300; and plaintiff avers that upon the discovery of such misrepresentation and fraud perpetrated upon her by the defendant she offered to the defendant to rescind said sale and offered to transfer, assign, and deliver to defendant, and now offers to transfer, assign, and deliver to defendant, the assignment of said one-hundredth interest in said patent or letters patent, and demanded of the defendant the return to her of the said amount of $300, which defendant declined and refused to do and which said amount as herein claimed is still due and unpaid. (4) Plaintiff claims of the defendant $300 and lawful interest thereon from February 15, 1918, as damages for deceit in the sale of an undivided one-hundredth interest in and to two letters patent which defendant represented to be recorded in the Patent Office at Washington under No. 1256036 and No. 1241012, which letters represented to plaintiff by defendant were, or represented to be, a patent on a boll weevil machine which patent or letters patent represented himself to be the sole owner of, and defendant at the time of such sale, to induce plaintiff to purchase said one-hundredth interest, represented to plaintiff that he had completed arrangements for the delivery of, and would deliver, one boll weevil machine, made to conform to said letters patent or patent, to one government agricultural demonstration agent in each county in Alabama for samples during the early part of the spring of the year 1918, and that he had also completed arrangements to place such boll weevil machines on the general market for sale the early part of the spring of the year 1918, and that defendant would also be engaged in the sale and delivery of such boll weevil machines during the spring of the year of 1918, which defendant failed to do as agreed as aforesaid. And plaintiff avers that such representations were made by defendant to induce plaintiff to purchase said one-hundredth interest, and plaintiff, relying on such representations to be true, as she had a right to do, was thereby induced to purchase and did purchase said interest on, to wit, February 15, 1918, from defendant and paid defendant therefor $300, and plaintiff avers that said representations made as aforesaid by the defendant were untrue and false, which defendant well knew at the time.

Source: CourtListener

Court

Alabama Court of Appeals

Abolished 1969

Parallel citations

87 So 624