Court Opinion

ID: 4926973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-24 00:58:11.785286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:14:22.966755
License: Public Domain

The case was continued for advisement, and the opinion of the Court afterwards drawn up by
Shepley J.
As the contract between the parties was reduced to writing, it is contended, that parol evidence should not have been admitted to prove, that other allegations were made, than those contained in it; and the case of Richards v. Killam is relied upon as in point. In that case the assignment of the bond was made under seal, and the action was assumpsit complaining indeed of deceit and fraud but the declaration was drawn in such a manner, that the court say, that the allegations “ are insufficient to enable us to give to this action or the evidence to support it, the effect of an action for a deceit and fraud, considered as a tort, and not as a breach of contract.” And it appears to have been upon that ground, that the evidence was held to be inadmissible. In the case of Boyce v. Grundy, it was decided, that a party was not precluded from introducing testimony of other allegations made at the time than those contained in the written contract for the purpose of proving fraud.
Nor is one, who has in a contract of sale taken a warranty, precluded from rescinding it, if he can prove, that it was obtained from him by fraud; because the whole contract whatever may be its character is avoided by the fraud, and the parties are left to assert their rights as they would, if no contract had been made.
Fraud may be committed by the suppressio veri as well as by the allegatio falsi, if the means of information are not equally accessible to both, but exclusively within the knowledge of one of the *33parlies, and known lo bo material to a correct understanding of the subject; and especially when one of the parties relies upon the other to communicate to him the true state of facts to enable him to judge of the expediency of the bargain. The instructions given required the jury to find, that the former action was discontinued on account of the defence set up, and that this was artfully and purposely concealed, and that it would have had a material influence, had it been known, upon the contract. The case of Hill v. Grey, 1 Stark. Rep. 352, fully justifies this part of the charge.
The jury having found the contract fraudulent, the plaintiff had a right to rescind it, and having elected to do so, and performed what was necessary on his part, is entitled to recover.

Exceptions overruled.