Bayard v. Malcolm

Decided February 15, 1807

New York Supreme Court · decided 1807-02-15

This was an áction on the case, in the nature of a writ of deceit. Held: that, after verdict, the court will do what it can to help a declaration ; that the court will suppose every thing right, unless the contrary appears on the record ;‡ and the general scope of the authorities is, that after verdict, every legal intendment is to be admitted in its support.(a) Though I have not been able to find any…

Relies on Hull v. Turner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1807-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 1912

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Nicholas, Senator.

¶1I concur in the opinion of the Attorney General, that the judgment of the supreme court pught to be affirmed.

¶2 *573The majority of the court being of opinion that the judgment ought to be reversed, it was, thereupon, ordered and adjudged, that the judgment rendered by the supreme court be reversed, &c. (a)

¶3Judgment reversed.

¶4 Where the plaintiff grounds his action on deceit or fraud in the sale and not on a breach of contract, the deceit or fraud must he substantially alleged in the declaration ; otherwise no proof of fraud is admissible. The executors of Everston v. Mills, 6 John. Rep. 138. After verdict a declaration may he amended on terms to conform to the proof. Hull v. Turner, 1 Wend. 72.