Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1870

David v. Park

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided January 15, 1870 · Gray

103 Mass. 501

Cases that cite this one

42 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Miller v. Lucas (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)
BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUC. v. Everett W. Martin & Son (Fla. 1957)
Yorke v. Taylor (Mass. 1955)
Thompson v. Gaudette (Me. 1952)
L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Falls (Mich. 1940)
United States Gypsum Co. v. Carney (Mass. 1936)
Sheffer v. Rudnick (Mass. 1935)
Kirkland v. Lawrence (Mass. 1935)
Berger v. Harrison Improvement Co. (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1931)
White v. Miller (Conn. 1930)
LaChapelle v. United Shoe Machinery Corp. (Mass. 1930)
Dana v. Hovey (Mass. 1928)
Condon v. Sandhowe (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1925)
J. H. Gerlach Co. v. Noyes (Mass. 1925)
Thompson v. Nickle (Okla. 1924)
Hanson v. Hall Manufacturing Co. (Iowa 1922)
Sellards v. Adams (Ky. Ct. App. 1921)
Loverin v. Kuhne (Conn. 1919)
Lentz v. Landers (Ariz. 1919)
Bicalky Fan Co. v. Mosier & Summers, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1917)
Aronson v. Orlov (Mass. 1917)
Hiden v. Mahanes (Va. 1916)
Gannon, Goulding & Thies v. Hausaman (Okla. 1914)
Mt. Hope Nurseries Co. v. Jackson (Okla. 1912)
Postal Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Traders' State Bank (Tex. App. 1912)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Gray, J.

Neither of the grounds assigned by the learned judge who presided at the trial, for the ruling under which a verdict was returned for the defendant in each of these cases, is tenable.

1. The evidence introduced tended to show that the defendant falsely and fraudulently stated, as of his own knowledge, and not as matter of opinion, in the one case, that he had the inter *503est in the patent right which he undertook to sell, and in the other, that the invention was not covered by any other patent. A distinct statement of such a fact by a seller, knowing it to be false, and with intent to deceive the buyer, and on which the buyer acts to his own injury, will sustain an action of deceit, even if the buyer might have discovered the fraud by searching the records of the patent office. Brown v. Castles, 11 Cush. 348. Manning v. Albee, 11 Allen, 520; S. C. 14 Allen, 7. Watson v. Atwood, 25 Conn. 313.

2. Questions of the existence, validity or construction of letters patent for inventions, when arising collaterally in a suit in a state court, must be there tried and determined. Nash v. Lull, 102 Mass. 60. Exceptions sustained

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.