Supreme Court of the United States, 1876

Turner v. Ward

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 14, 1876 · Waite

154 U.S. 618; 14 S. Ct. 1179; 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1435 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Charles P. Crosby, Mr. J. M. Carlisle and Mr. J. D. McPherson for appellants., Mr. Ashley Pond and Mr. Henry B. Brown for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Gerald JOHNSON, Bankrupt, CARLISLE CASHWAY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerald JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee (6th Cir. 1982)
Sternberg v. American Snuff Co. (8th Cir. 1934)
Taylor v. Burr Printing Co. (2d Cir. 1928)
Manly v. Ohio Shoe Co. (4th Cir. 1928)
Gardiner v. Equitable Office Bldg. Corp. (2d Cir. 1923)
Independent Harvester Co. v. Tinsman (7th Cir. 1918)
City of Omaha v. Venner (8th Cir. 1917)
Putnam v. United States Trust Co. (Mass. 1916)
Canadian Agency, Ltd. v. Assets Realization Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1914)
In re J. S. Appel Suit & Cloak Co. (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1912)
Joslyn v. Cadillac Automobile Co. (6th Cir. 1910)
Dorsey v. Watkins (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri 1907)
William Openhym & Sons v. Blake (8th Cir. 1907)
In re J. S. Patterson & Co. (District Court, N.D. Texas 1903)
Dayton v. American Steel Barge Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1902)
Peninsular Stove Co. v. Mitchell (United States District Court for the District of Indiana 1902)
Dayton v. American Steel Barge Co. (New York Supreme Court 1901)
In re Weil (District Court, S.D. New York 1901)

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case presents for our consideration little else than a question of fact. The plaintiffs charge in substance that they were induced by false representations to sell the defendants certain goods, and asked to have the contract of sale rescinded, and their goods restored. The testimony is all embraced in the depositions of one of the plaintiffs and one of the defendants and an agreed statement. There is some discrepancy between the statements of *619the two witnesses, but it is apparent from the testimony of the defendant, who made the representations complained of, that he himself had been deceived in respect to the pecuniary condition of his firm. It would be but natural, therefore, that he should mislead the plaintiffs. He supposed the firm had stock on hand to the amount of twenty or twenty-five thousand dollars, and owed from five to eight thousand. According to his own statement, he so told the plaintiff. In point of fact, he was mistaken, and his statement was untrue. The firm was largely in debt, and in less than sixty days it failed and made an assignment. Before this, however, it executed two chattel mortgages upon the stock, each purporting upon its face to secure the payment of ten thousand dollars, though it appears that the amount actually owing to . the mortgagees was not so much.

Mr. Charles P. Crosby, Mr. J. M. Carlisle and Mr. J. D. McPherson for appellants. Mr. Ashley Pond and Mr. Henry B. Brown for appellees.

The representations proven are not in the precise language of those averred in the bill, but they are of the same general character, and in our opinion, sufficient to justify the decree rendered in the court below, and it is, therefore, Affirmed.

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