Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

53 N.J.L. 656

Crowell v. Jackson

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided June 15, 1891

Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1891-06-15

On error to the Essex Circuit Court. The writ of error is brought for the purpose of determining the correctness of the decision of the court below in sustaining-a demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration. The action was for deceit in the purchase of certain sliaresof the capital stock of the Holbrook Printing Company by the defendant from the plaintiff.

Relies on Board of Commissioners v. Reynolds

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 1980

8 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

501891190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

The Chancellor.

¶2We are of opinion that, in contemplation of law, there can be no fraud without moral delinquency; in other words, that there is no actual fraud which is not also moral fraud. In purchase or sale, if there be no designed misrepresentation by words or deeds and no active intentional concealment, and no intentional silence where there is is a duty to speak, an action for deceit will not lie. A director, or the treasurer, of a corporation, is not, because of his office, in duty bound to disclose to an individual stockholder, before purchasing his stock, that which he may know as to the real condition of the corporation affecting the value of that stock. He is, to some extent, trustee for the stockholders, as a body, in respect to the property and business of the corporation, but does not sustain that relation to individual stockholders with respect to their several holdings of stock over which he has no control.

¶3We approve the conclusions reached by the Supreme Court of Indiana in The Board of Commissioners of Tippecanoe Co. v. Reynolds, 44 Ind. 509, which are directly in point with the. questions here raised.

¶4The judgment below will be affirmed.

¶5For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Dixon, Knapp, Magie, Reed, Scudder, Yan Syckel, Brown, Clement, Smith, Whitaker. 12.

¶6For reversal—None.

/53/njl/656 · .json · Public domain