Whitson v. Gray
| Decision Date | 31 December 1859 |
| Citation | 40 Tenn. 441 |
| Parties | W. P. WHITSON v. M. J. GRAY. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM HICKMAN.
Verdict and judgment for the defendant, at the October term, 1859, Walker, J., presiding. The plaintiff appealed.
Bateman, for the plaintiff.
Hughes, for the defendant.
The question in this case is upon the charge of the court in relation to the measure of damages claimed by the defendant on his plea, in the nature of a cross-action, of fraud in the sale of slaves.
On the 17th of January, 1857, Gray sold to Whitson a negro woman slave and her child for $1,550. The bill of sale recites that the woman was about twenty-five years of age, and warrants the title of soundness. Two notes were given for the price--one for $550, and the other for $1,000. The first note has been paid, and upon the last, due 17th January, 1858, this suit was instituted, October 4, 1858. The defense relied upon, is a fraud in the sale, for which defendant claimed damages by way of recoupment. The fraud consisted in the false representation that the slave was twenty-five years old, when in fact she was twenty-nine and a half, and this known to the vendor. This plea is sustained by the proof. The court instructed the jury that for this fraud the vendee was entitled to such damages as may have resulted to him therefrom, as an offset against the note. To that point the proof is directed. The witnesses give their opinions as to the difference in value between such a slave of the age of twenty-five and twenty-nine and a half years. They vary from one to three or four hundred dollars in favor of the former age.
The court held, that the measure of damages was the difference between the real value of the slave of the age she really was, and that which she was falsely represented to be. To this there is no objection. But he further held that the plaintiff might prove that she was worth, with her child, more than the amount given, even if she had been twenty-nine and a half years old, and if only twenty-five, about $1,800. And upon such a state of proof, the defendant would be entitled to no damages, although the fraudulent misrepresentation might be established. He held the law to be, that in order to recover damages against a vendor, it was not enough to show fraud, but, also, some injury or loss to the vendee--that both must concur to authorize a recovery. So we understand the law to be. But still it is insisted that the rule, that the measure of the damages is the difference between the article as represented, and as it was in fact, applies, in such a case, and confines the vendor to the price paid for the article, as its value, considering it to have been as represented. That is, if such a slave at twenty-five would be worth $1,800, with her child, and if twenty-nine and a half, only $1,550, the vendee would be entitled to recover the difference between these two sums as damages. In other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. Travelers Ins. of Hartford, Conn.
...since her badly injured condition diminished her ability to ascertain the truth. 4 Sixth, the plaintiff must suffer damage. Whitson v. Gray, 40 Tenn. 441, 444 (1859); Cunningham v. Edgefield and Kentucky R.R. Co., 39 Tenn. 23, 29 (1859); Haynes v. Cumberland Builders, Inc., supra, 546 S.W.2......
-
Orlowski v. Bates
...442 S.W.2d 644 (1968)). Second, "[t]he representation musthave been to an existing fact which is material . . . ." Id. (citing Whitson v. Gray, 40 Tenn. 441 (1859)). Third, "the plaintiff must have reasonably relied upon that representation to his injury." Id. Standley argues that the Third......
-
Grant v. Tucker, 3:10–cv–0338.
...respect to an existing material fact, and the plaintiff must have reasonably relied on the misrepresentation to his injury. Whitson v. Gray, 40 Tenn. 441 (Tenn.1859) ; Dozier v. Hawthorne Dev. Co., 37 Tenn.App. 279, 262 S.W.2d 705 (1953). Under Tennessee law, a plaintiff must establish four......
-
Haynes v. Cumberland Builders, Inc.
...to an existing fact which is material and the plaintiff must have reasonably relied upon that representation to his injury. Whitson v. Gray, 40 Tenn. 441 (1859); Dozier v. Hawthorne Development Co.,37 Tenn.App. 279, 262 S.W.2d 705 In commercial transactions the law has recognized a less str......