Case Name: Benjamin Driver v. A. Hunt et al.
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1881-05-05
Citations: 11 Ky. Op. 169
Docket Number: 
Parties: Benjamin Driver v. A. Hunt et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Opinions, containing the unreported opinions of the Court of Appeals
Volume: 11
Pages: 169–169

Head Matter:
Benjamin Driver v. A. Hunt et al.
[Abstract Kentucky Law Reporter, Vol. 2-435.]
Contract Avoided by Fraud.
Where as an inducement to contract for the purchase of territory in which to sell a patented machine the seller falsely and fraudulently represents that said territory had not been canvassed, the purchaser is not bound by said contract.
APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.
Little & Slack, for appellant.
George W. Jolly, for appellees.
May 5, 1881.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Judge Hines:
The evidence in this case appears to us sufficient to support the allegation that Conlin & Bro. fraudulently represented that the territory bought by appellees had not been canvassed for any other washing machine similar to the one patented to Conlin. The statement of the witnesses as to what they heard about the canvassing for another machine is not competent; but, in the absence of any conflicting evidence, the evidence that other machines similar to this were found in the counties visited by appellees is sufficient in itself to show that the representation was false and fraudulent. It matters not whether Conlin knew this fact or not. He made the representation at his peril, and appellees had a right to rely upon it.
Judgment affirmed.