Case ID: f_285/html/0161-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HUBERT et al. v. APOSTOLOFF et al. (two cases). APOSTOLOFF v. PORTABLE ELECTRIC CURRENT PATENTS CO. SAME v. PORTABLE ELECTRIC CURRENT CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    November 24, 1922.)
    Nos. 76, 127, 128.
    Contracts <®=»94(5)«=Party liable for results causad Ssy reliance on his misrepresentations.
    Where appellant exhibited efficient batteries to appellees, and falsely represented that some of these batteries had been made two years, and the maintenance of their efficiency was due to appellant’s method of construction, appellant is liable for the results caused by appellees’ reliance on these representations.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.
    
      Suits in equity by Conrad Hubert and others against Sergius Apostoloff' and another and against said Apostoloff alone; also suits by the said Apostoloff against the Portable Electric Current Patents Company and against the Portable Electric Current Company, Inc. From a decree for complainants in their suits, and from decrees dismissing both suits of Apostoloff (278 Fed. 673), said Apostoloff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Borris M. Komar, of New York City (Charles A. Brodek and E. E. Schlechter, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
    C. Bertram Plante, of New York City (Herman Aaron, of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.
    Before HOUGH, MANTON, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

The appellant asserted to the appellee Hubert that certain batteries exhibited by him and perfectly efficient when exhibited had been made in accordance with appellant’s method long before the period of exhibition, in some instances as much as two years. It was asserted that battery efficiency had been maintained during these long periods because of the excellence of appellant’s method of construction.

This was an absolute falsehood, fully proven, if not in effect admitted, and out of this false representation and reliance thereon all the matters complained of by Hubert and his associates directly grew. Nothing in this bulky record enables Apostoloff to escape from the equitable and legal consequences of this fundamental fraud.

Decrees affirmed, with costs. 
      <@s»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes