Case Name: Thomas Tuomey, Respondent, v. John J. Walsh et al., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-12-11
Citations: 222 N.Y. 572
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Tuomey, Respondent, v. John J. Walsh et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 222
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
Thomas Tuomey, Respondent, v. John J. Walsh et al., Appellants.
Tuomey v. Walsh, 169 App. Div. 933, affirmed.
(Submitted November 23, 1917;
decided December 11, 1917.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 25, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The action was brought to recover damages for fraud and deceit. It was alleged that the parties hereto entered into a written agreement with one McClintock by which they were to purchase an assignment from McClintock of certain letters patent, the plaintiff to advance one-half of the purchase price and each of the defendants one-fourth; that the defendants represented to the plaintiff that the lowest amount for which the patents could be purchased was $3,000; that the plaintiff relying upon this representation entered into the agreement and advanced $1,500; that the patent was thereafter assigned to the plaintiff and the defendants, the consideration mentioned being $3,000; that the purchase price, however, was not $3,000, but was $2,000, of which sum the defendants advanced only $500 and the plaintiff $1,500. The plaintiff claimed that as the purchase price was only $2,000 and as he was to advance but fifty per cent of the purchase price the amount he should have paid was $1,000 instead of $1,500, and this action was brought to recover the $500 paid by the plaintiff to the defendants in excess of the sum which he should have paid. The defendants’ contention is that they secured an option from McClintock to purchase the patent for $2,000 and immediately sold to the plaintiff who did not know McClintock arid who was not familiar with the patent a half interest for $1,500.
Julius Hallheimer and Francis A. O’ Neill for appellants.
William R. Hill for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur; Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Cuddeback, Hogan, Pound and Andrews, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J.