Case ID: ny_66/html/0611-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John S. Slingerland, Respondent v. Erasmus Bennett, Appellant.
    (Argued April 11, 1876;
    decided April 18, 1876.)
    This was an action for .frapd. Defendant purchased of plaintiff a pair of horses, turning out in part payment a promissory note. The fraud - alleged was -fraudulent representations as to the responsibility of the maker of the note. Plaintiff sued the note and obtained judgment, but could not collect. The court charged, among other things, in substance, that if the jury believed the alleged fraud established, plaintiff, -in addition to the amount of the note, was entitled to recover the costs in the action against - the maker, with -interest, to which defendant’s counsel duly excepted. -Held, error; that.plaintiff was not obliged to sue the note as a condition precedent to his right to recover; the; posts .were not flle proximate result or the natural consequence of the fraud; and therefore were not a proper item of damages.
    
      J. H. Chite for-the appellant.
    
      Amasa J. Parker for the respondent.
   Per Curiam

opinion for reversal and new trial, unless plaintiff stipulates to deduct from the recovery the sum of ninety-three dollars and thirty-six cents, and-if he so stipulates, the judgment, as so modified, affirmed.

All concur.

Judgment accordingly