King v. White

• Decision Date: 05 November 1898
• Citation: 119 Ala. 429,24 So. 710
• Parties: KING v. WHITE ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

24 So. 710

119 Ala. 429

KING v. WHITE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 5, 1898

Appeal from city court of Birmingham; W. W. Wilkinson, Judge.

Action by R. L. King against James N. White and another. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

The purposes of the suit and the substance of the complaint are sufficiently stated in the opinion. To the complaint the defendants demurred upon the following grounds: "(1) No facts are stated which justify the conclusion of wrong on the part of the defendants. (2) It is no wrong for the patentee of an invention, engaged in selling to buyers the rights to manufacture and sell said patented article, to conspire and agree together with another to induce plaintiff to become the purchaser of the right to sell said patented article. (3) It nowhere appears that plaintiff, or that defendants or either of them, made any false representations in regard to the merits of said article, or that there was any lack of title in defendant George. (4) It is not averred or shown in said complaint that plaintiff did not receive in full what he bought, or that the right bought by plaintiff was not equal in value to the amount alleged to have been paid by plaintiff. (5) It is not averred or shown that plaintiff suffered any damage by the wrong complained of. (6) The count does not aver or show that plaintiff was misled or deceived as to the quality, description, or merits of the patented device. (7) Said count does not aver or show that said patented device or article was not open to examination by plaintiff or any one for him. (8) Whether defendant George was or was not to collect from said White the sum of two hundred dollars was not material to plaintiff. (9) It is not averred that defendant George made, or caused to be made, any representations to plaintiff. (10) Said count fails to show any fraud upon plaintiff. (11) Said count fails to show any misrepresentation to plaintiff of any material fact. (12) Said count fails to show any fraud, misrepresentation, or breach of warranty in reference to any material fact. (13) Said count fails to aver or show that plaintiff was deceived in reference to any material fact. (14) What White was to pay to George was immaterial to plaintiff." The court sustained the demurrers, and, the plaintiff declining to amend his complaint or to plead further, judgment was rendered for the defendants. From this judgment the plaintiff appeals, and assigns as error the rulings of the court in sustaining the demurrers interposed to the complaint.

Ward &amp Campbell, for appellant.

Bowman & Harsh, for appellees.

BRICKELL C.J.

This was an action on the case instituted by appellant to recover for damages alleged to have resulted from a deceit and fraud practiced upon him by appellees in the sale of a right to vend, in the state of Georgia, a certain patented lock, of which defendant George was the patentee. Demurrers specifying many objections to the complaint were interposed by the defendants and sustained by the court, and, plaintiff declining to amend, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants, from which plaintiff appeals, assigning as error the judgment of the court sustaining the demurrers. The complaint alleges, in substance, that defendants George and White unlawfully conspired and agreed together to induce plaintiff to become a purchaser of the right to vend said patented lock in the state of Georgia, the scheme by which the object of the conspiracy was to be accomplished being that White was to propose to plaintiff to become a joint purchaser with him of said right for the purchase price of $400, one-half to be paid by White and one-half by plaintiff "but with the agreement between said White and George that said White was not to pay said $200, but was to receive an assignment of one-half of said patent right to make sales of said patented article, and county rights in the state of Georgia, for inducing plaintiff to pay the sum of $200 to said George"; that, in pursuance of this unlawful agreement, White proposed to plaintiff to become a joint purchaser with him of said right, at the price of $400, each to pay $200; and that plaintiff, relying upon, and influenced by, the facts that the purchase price was $400, and that White was to become a joint purchaser and pay one-half of this amount, accepted the proposition and made the purchase paying to George the sum of $200, his supposed share of the purchase price. Each of the six counts of the complaint contains the substance of the above averments, some of them averring additional false representations made by White, in urging the purchase, by which plaintiff was deceived, and that...