Frederick v. Sherman
Decision Date | 28 May 1918 |
Citation | 89 Or. 187,173 P. 575 |
Parties | FREDERICK ET AL. v. SHERMAN ET AL. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 25, 1918.
Department 1.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; W. N. Gatens, Judge.
Action by Noah Frederick and another against F. H. Sherman and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with direction to enter a judgment of nonsuit.
This is an action to recover money. The complaint recites that on August 14, 1915, defendants induced plaintiffs to purchase from them the exclusive right to sell certain patented automobile tires in the state of Oregon, by falsely representing that the Davis-Fry Manufacturing Company was the owner of and had the exclusive right of manufacture and sale of such tires in all the territory of the United States. That defendants, through said company, had the exclusive right to sell such tires in the state of Oregon, except as to certain specified counties, and that for the sum of $1,000 defendants would assign to plaintiffs the rights and privileges granted to them by such manufacturing company; that relying upon such representations, they contracted with defendants therefor and paid them the thousand dollars; that these representations were false, in that the Davis-Fry Manufacturing Company was not the owner and did not have any right to manufacture or sell the tires, for the reason that the contract between the company and the owner of the patent right had been canceled on May 11, 1915, which fact was then known to defendants, but was unknown to plaintiffs. These allegations are followed by the following paragraphs:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parker v. Title and Trust Company
...warrant a decree cancelling the policy. Appellants assert that the rule of law here applicable is that which was stated in Frederick v. Sherman, 89 Or. 187, 173 P. 575, where the court approved language quoted from Bigelow on Fraud to the effect that as a general rule silence alone is not u......
-
McGinn v. McGinn
...C. J. 1069, cf. O'Leary v. Tillinghast, 22 R. I. 161, 46 A. 754), and that even meditated silence may not be fraudulent (Frederick v. Sherman, 89 Or. 187, 173 P. 575). Many of the "silence" cases rest on the proposition that one party has been remiss in inquiry or has not been led by the ot......
-
Palmiter v. Hackett
... ... rest upon partial statement and partial silence ... The ... case of Frederick v. Sherman, 89 Or. 187, 173 P ... 575, cited in support of the petition for rehearing, was an ... instance where the defendants actually ... ...