Summary

Stanley Matthews Thorwegan v. King — Opinion of the Court

After the jury had retired they requested further instructions, as follows: 'The jury desire to be instructed whether the withholding of the true financial condition of the boat constitutes a fraud?' And, in answer, the court said: 'If the disclosing of it, as I have told you before, became a duty,-that is, if the withholding was intentional, for the purpose of accomplishing a fraud upon the individual,-and it was necessary for it to be disclosed, then such withholding would be a fraud.
Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews Thorwegan v. King — Opinion of the Court

Everything else charged in the complaint-that the defendant would pay off the incumbrances and liabilities before transferring the boat to the corporation, and would convey to it a title free and clear of all liability on account of any existing debt-was promissory in its nature, related to the future, depended on contract merely, and could not be, of itself, the foundation of an action for deceit. At most, it would be but a warranty of the title against incumbrances and liability for debts, for breach of which an action on the agreement would accrue.
Source: Wikisource

Stanley Matthews Thorwegan v. King — Opinion of the Court

Among other things, the court, in its charge, said: 'The complaint is that by fraudulent and false statements, a suppression of the truth on the part of the defendant, the deception was practiced upon the plaintiff.' And: 'The the law will not permit any one to make fraudulent representation, and thus obtain from the party some valuable thing, money, or otherwise. If any one commits a fraud of that kind, and thereby another loses his money, having trusted to what was said to him, why the individual who does it is still responsible to the party thus defrauded.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature