Wardell v. Fosdick & Davis, 13 Johns. 325

Per Curiam.

The evidence is sufficient to support the allegation of fraud against both the defendants, and there appears no legal ‘objection to this form of action. Where the party hhs been induced, by such a fraudulent representation, t® pay his money, and accept a dééd, it is immaterial whether any, or what, cqvenánts are.contained In the.deed, .The purchaser so, defrauded, has’a right to treat the .deed as: a nullity, and may maintain An- action on the cá.sé for. the deceit. '.(Frost v. Raymond, 2 Caines' Rep. 193. Bostwick v. Lewis, 1 Day, 250. Com. Dig. Action on the Case for Deceit, (A. 8.)

-judgment’fot the,plaintiff.

Case Details

Case Name: Wardell v. Fosdick & Davis

Court Name: New York Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 15, 1816

Citation: 13 Johns. 325

Court Abbreviation: N.Y. Sup. Ct.