Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar

Summary

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar Synnott v. Shaughnessy — Opinion of the Court

It will be observed that the basis of this assignment of error is the assumption that Porter, as the agent of the plaintiffs, prior to the day the mine was sold, had discovered a valuable body of ore, the knowledge of which he concealed from the plaintiffs, and imparted to the defendant. This assumption, as shown by the findings, to which we are restricted, is entirely without foundation. Neither Porter, nor the defendant nor his agent, Wall, ever discovered any vein or lode of ore on the claim at any time prior to the sale thereof by the plaintiffs.
Source: Wikisource

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar Synnott v. Shaughnessy — Opinion of the Court

The plaintiffs in error rest their case upon two propositions, viz.: (1) The defendant, with knowledge of the existence of a large 'body of ore' in this claim, by his agent, who made the purchase, willfully misled the plaintiffs in relation thereto, and induced them to sell for a price which they would not have sold for had they been truly informed of the facts.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature