Buford v. Caldwell

Decided August 15, 1834

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1834-08-15

<p>3. To charge that a representation was falsely and fraudulently made, is a substantial charge that the defendant knew it to be untrue; and where it may be reasonably inferred that the party malting the representations must know the truth of the matter, pf which he speaks, to state what is not known to be true, is just as criminal in the eye of the law as to state what is known to be false,</p> <p>s. Neither law nor equity will afford relief where the subject matter of dispute is equally known to both parties, or auout which both pasties had equal means of information, and in regard to which they are equally negligent.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1834-08-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 1913

1 federal appellate · 12 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 →

M’Girk, C. J.,

¶1dissenting.

¶2I am of opinion that the plaintiff cannot recover. It seems to me it should have been charged in the declaration, that the defendant fraudulently made the representations. The declaration says the representations were false and fraudulent, but doea not say they were so made.

¶3It appears to me that the mistake existing in the case, is only a mistake of innocence ; it is mutual, the means of correct knowledge were equally open to the plaintiff as well as the defendant. The plaintiff should have assured himself how the lines would run. Before he can have any equity, he should offer to rescind the contract. The land he has may be more valuable than the land he did not get; he ought not to keep the land he got by mistake,’ and get the value of the land he supposed he was to get.