Crowell v. Jackson
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision. The 14 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Chenery Corporation v. Securities and Exchange Com'n (D.C. Cir. 1942)
- Treadway Companies, Inc. v. Care Corp. (2d Cir. 1980)
- Smyth Sales, Inc. v. Petroleum Heat & Power Co. (3d Cir. 1942)
- Boddy v. Henry (Iowa 1901)
- Konsuvo v. Netzke (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1966)
- Judson v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co. (N.J. 1957)
- Gardner v. Baldi (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1952)
- American Trust Co. v. California Western States Life Insurance (Cal. 1940)
- Dunnett v. Arn (10th Cir. 1934)
- Goodwin v. Agassiz (Mass. 1933)
- Stout v. Cunningham (Idaho 1921)
- Dawson v. National Life Insurance Co. of America (Iowa 1916)
- George v. Ford (D.C. Cir. 1911)
- Walsh v. Goulden (Mich. 1902)
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
The opinion of the court was delivered by
We 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.
We 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.
The judgment below will be affirmed.
For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Dixon, Knapp, Magie, Reed, Scudder, Yan Syckel, Brown, Clement, Smith, Whitaker. 12.
For reversal—None.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.