Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 U.S. 250

COCHRAN v. Cummings

Supreme Court of the United States · decided December Term, 1802

Case, for goods sold and delivered. There was a special defence, that the defendant had sold and conveyed to the plaintiffs, a quantity of land in the county of Northumberland, in satisfaction of their demand; and the deed of conveyance, dated in June 1799, was produced. But the plaintiffs insisted : 1st. That they took the conveyance only as a collateral security : and 2d. That they were imposed upon by the defendant, as to the quality of the land.

1 counsel of record

Cited in Case Law’s definition of “gross misrepresentation”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided December Term, 1802

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1950

2 state decisions

301802181018201830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

¶1

CASE, for goods sold and delivered. There was a special defence, that the defendant had sold, and conveyed to the plaintiffs, a quantity of land in the county of Northumberland, in satisfaction of their demand; and the deed of conveyance, dated in June 1799, was produced. But the plaintiffs insisted, 1st. That they took the conveyance only as a collateral security: and, 2dly. That they were imposed upon by the defendant, as to the quality of the land.

¶2

On the first point, the evidence was contradictory; and the COURT left it, implicitly, to be decided by the jury.

¶3

On the second point, it was proved, that the defendant had represented the land as very valuable; saying, that it was such as would sell, in two or three years, for a price, from two to six dollars an acre: but, in fact, the land was a part of a mountain, commonly called 'Jack's Second Mountain;' so rude, that it could not be cultivated; and so steep, that it was inaccessible, even to take off the wood, without incalculable expense and labour. In the charge of the COURT, on this point, it was said,

By SHIPPEN, Chief Justice:

¶4

Wherever there is a gross misrepresentation of facts, relating to the subject of a contract, the contract is fraudulent and void. If, therefore, the jury shall be of opinion, that such a misrepresentation was made, in the present instance; they should consider the conveyance as no payment, although the plaintiffs agreed, under the deception, to accept it in satisfection; and the verdict must be for damages to the whole amount of the demand.

¶5

Verdict, accordingly, for the plaintiffs' whole demand.

¶6

Ingersoll, and Heatly, for the plaintiffs.

¶7

M. Levy, and Porter, for the defendant.

/4/us/250 · .json · Public domain