154 N.Y.S. 493 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1915
The .defendants motion to. dismiss. the ..complaint hergin was granted.by.theirial court before, any evidence wasintroduead,
In Edgington v. Fitzmaurice (L. R. 29 Ch. Div. 459) a prospectus had been issued by the directors of the Army and Navy Provision Market (Limited), which among other things set forth the objects for which an issue of £25,000 of debentures was to be made, such as enabling the society to complete alterations and additions to its buildings, to purchase its own horses and vans and to develop its arrangements for obtaining a fresh supply of fish from the coast. Cotton, L. J., said in relation to the part of the prospectus in question (p. 479): “It was argued that this was only the statement of an intention, and that the mere fact that an intention was not carried into effect could not make the Defendants liable to the Plaintiff. I agree that it was a statement of intention, but it is nevertheless a statement of fact, and if it could not be fairly said that the objects of the issue of the debentures were those which were stated in the prospectus the Defendants were stating a fact which was not true; and if they knew that it was not true,, or made it recklessly, not caring whether it was true or not, they would be liable. ” . :
In the same case Bowen, L. J.,- said (p. 482):. “ But when .we Cometo the third alleged misstatement I'feel-that the; Plaintiff’s
The judgment appealed from will, therefore, be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Soott and Hotchkiss, JJ., concurred.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.