Hardt v. Reeves
Hardt v. Reeves
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
This judgment was obtained for want of sufficient affidavit of defense.
The instrument declared on shows on its face that the plaintiff in error was to have five days allowed to her to consummate the bargain recited therein. The affidavit of defense, inter alia, declares that the obligation was’ given in consideration of the purchase of the good will of a lodging house and restaurant, together with the fixtures and household furniture therein; that the vendor stated the business was prosperous and paying; that she had, as regular customers, about 400 people daily who took their meals there; that- she sold not less than 100 quarts of milk daily, and that she was not in debt.
Deponent swears she bargained on the strength of these representations, believing them to be true, and agreed to bind the bargain by paying $20 down, which she paid, and was to have five days to investigate the character and extent of the business, and if her investigations did not prove satisfactory, she should be at liberty to decline to consummate the bargain; and under this understanding and agreement she signed the writing.
Deponent further avers that on investigation she ascertained the representations made by the vendor were false as to the extent and prosperous condition of her business; that in fact only
At this stage of the case, and for the purpose we are now considering these alleged facts, they must be assumed to be true. If they shall be substantially proved on the trial, it will present a case which should be submitted to a jury. It follows the judgment was improperly ordered.
Judgment reversed and a procedendo awarded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Adelaide Hardt, Plff. in Err. v. Matilda Reeves
- Status
- Published