Court Opinion

ID: 9667683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:52:16.432406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:39.805667
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
concurring.
Appellant in this action contends that intent is an element of fraud in Nebraska. He relies upon Transportation Equipment Rentals, Inc. v. Mauk (1969), 184 Neb. 309, 167 N. W. 2d 183, the first syllabus point of which reads: “The essential elements required to sustain an action for fraud are, generally speaking, that a representation was made as a statement of fact, which was untrue and unknown to be untrue by the party making it, or else recklessly made; that it was made with intent to deceive and for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it; and that he did in fact rely on it and was induced thereby to act to his injury or’ damage.” (Italics supplied.)
The statement “that it was made with intent to deceive and for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it” crept into that case by inadvertence and had no bearing on the result reached. Our law is otherwise. See, Swanson Petroleum Corp. v. Cumberland (1969), 184 Neb. 323, 167 N. W. 2d 391; Allied Building *233Credits, Inc. v. Damicus (1958), 167 Neb. 390, 93 N. W. 2d 210; Campbell v. C & C Motor Co. (1946), 146 Neb. 721, 21 N. W. 2d 427.