Majority
p. 739DAMERS v. STERNBERGER. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. February 4, 1907.) Argued before GIDDERSEEEVE, BLANCHARD, and DAYTON, JJ.
Headnote
Fraud—Fraudulent Representations—Existing Facts and Promises for the Future.Where the controlling considerations which induced plaintiff to act were defendant’s fraudulent representations regarding existing facts, plaintiff is entitled to recover his damages, notwithstanding he may also have been influenced by defendant’s false promise as to future transactions.
17, [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 23, Fraud, §§ 14, , 18-1
Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term
Action by John Darners against Morris S. Sternberger. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
See 95 N. Y. Supp. 532 .-
Harrison, Seasongood & Edwards (Clifford Seasongood, of counsel), for appellant.
Robert B. Knowles (L. A. Gould, of counsel), for respondent.
Upon all the facts the jury might well find fraudulent representations by the defendant and payment of money by the plaintiff in reliance thereon. Although the plaintiff may also have been influenced by certain false promises as to future transactions, which the defendant made, it is evident that the controlling considerations which induced the plaintiff to part with his money were the defendant’s fraudulent' representations regarding existent facts.
The judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs.