Case Name: Johanna Bernhard, Pl'ff and Resp't v. Mary S. McMaster and Mary G. McMaster, as executrices of David McMaster, deceased, Deft's and App'ts
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-12-19
Citations: 3 N.Y. St. Rep. 531
Docket Number: 
Parties: Johanna Bernhard, Pl’ff and Resp’t v. Mary S. McMaster and Mary G. McMaster, as executrices of David McMaster, deceased, Deft’s and App’ts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 3
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
Johanna Bernhard, Pl’ff and Resp’t v. Mary S. McMaster and Mary G. McMaster, as executrices of David McMaster, deceased, Deft’s and App’ts.
(New York Superior Court, General Term,
Filed December 19, 1886.)
Contract—False statement—Defense.
Ah alleged false statement as to the value of certain property, which may have induced a contract for its purchase, does not constitute a defense to an obligation arising out of such contract, in controversy between parties hearing no other relation to each other than such as arose from the contract.
Appeal from judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The plaintiff sued upon a bond given to secure part of the purchase money of land in Virginia. The defendants set up a counter-claim of $20,000 damages for fraud.
Alexander Thain, for app’lts; Roger Foster, for respt’s.'

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
As the appellants submit no evidence, but rely on ings affirmatively show:
First. That there is no proof that the plaintiff made to David McMaster, before he purchased her property in Virginia, any representation which she believed to be untrue.
Second. That there is no proof that the plaintiff made to David McMaster, before he purchased her property in Virginia, any representations with the intent to defraud him.
Third. That there is no proof that any artifice was-employed by the plaintiff before David McMaster agreed to buy the said land, to prevent inquiry by him concerning said land; and, .»
Fourth. That there is no proof that David McMaster did, on account of his reliance upon any representations made by the plaintiff, forbear from inspecting the said land before he purchased the same.
The only grievance left to the appellants consists of a false statement as to the value of the land.
Such a statement has never yet been held to constitute a defense to an obligation arising out of a contract thus entered into in a controversy between parties bearing no other relation to each other than such as arose from the contract, and as long as the controversy is between such parties it makes no difference that the false statements as to value may have induced, or did induce, the contract.
So mere inadequacy of consideration of itself is never proof of fraud in such a case.
The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.