Opinion ID: 1149333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: representation of future event

Text: What about the first nettlesome question, the representation of the defendants' attorneys pertained to what would transpire in the future, and not to any present or past fact? In Credit Industrial Co. v. Adams County Lumber & Supply Co., 215 Miss. 282, 290, 60 So.2d 790, 794 (1952), quoting from the previous decision of McArthur v. Fillingame, 184 Miss. 869, 876, 186 So. 828, 829 (1939), this Court held: [F]raudulent representations upon which a party may predicate any demand for relief must relate to past or presently existing facts, as facts, and cannot consist of promises, except in some cases when a contractual promise is made with the present undisclosed intention of not performing it. Also, Pearce v. Pierce, 214 Miss. 344, 347, 58 So.2d 824, 825 (1952), holding that to set aside a release for misrepresentation or fraud it must be alleged and proved the fraud was as to past or existing facts. Also, 38 Am.Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit, §§ 60-65; 37 C.J.S. Fraud, §§ 11-12.