Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Johns. 110

Willson v. Foree

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1810

New York Supreme Court · decided 1810-05-15

THIS cause came before the court, ón a writ of error, from the Duchess common pleas. ' Tr, , . . _ Willson brought an action on the case against Foree, 911 d declared in assumpsit, 1. For a horse, chair, and ilarness, sold and deliverd; 2. For money lent, money had and received, &c. 3. And an insimul computassent.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1810-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 1915

11 state decisions

3018101820183018401850186018701880189019001910decided

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 →

Per Curiam.

¶1The evidence offered ought to have been received. It went to prove fraud in the defendant, in the special contract which he set up as to the payment; and it is a well settled principle of law, that fraudulent representations will vitiate any contract. The basis of every contract is good faith. If the special contract be void, on the ground of fraud, the plaintiff may disregard it, and bring assumpsit for the goods sold. The taking of the note under a fraudulent misrepresentation, was no payment j and any term of credit which the taking of the note may have implied, became void. (1 Esp. Cases, 430. 2 Esp. Cases, 522, 1 Comyn on Contracts, 38.) The plaintiff was nonsuited below, but still, error will lie on a judgment of nonsuit, in cases where costs are awarded by the judgment. (2 Johns. Rep. 9.) The judgment below was erroneous, and must be reversed.

¶2Judgment reversed-

/6/johns/110 · .json · Public domain