{
  "id": 2619831,
  "name": "William M. Case v. John B. Ayers",
  "name_abbreviation": "Case v. Ayers",
  "decision_date": "1872-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "142",
  "last_page": "146",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "65 Ill. 142"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "21 N. Y. 238",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        1749963
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/21/0259-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Met. 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Met.",
      "case_ids": [
        2065829
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/45/0151-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 369,
    "char_count": 7559,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.0842884201767027e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8582054397766047
    },
    "sha256": "0bb969efb1ee230fd26bdbe0e126648f9ba65d5814bb474f37b7cf0db658ef81",
    "simhash": "1:65a2adc91ed22ad1",
    "word_count": 1306
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:51:24.172785+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William M. Case v. John B. Ayers."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Sheldon\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action on the case for deceit, by means of alleged false representations in a bargain for the sale of a load of wool.\nThe verdict and .judgment in the court below were for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.\nIt is assigned for error that the verdict is against the evidence.\nThe verdict, upon the facts, is not satisfactory to us; but as for a different reason the cause is to be remanded for another trial, we will dismiss this point without further remark.\nIt is also assigned for error that the court erred in not giving the plaintiff's first instruction as asked, and in giving it as it was modified by the court, and in giving instructions for the defendant.\nThere was no error in refusing the plaintiff's first instruction as asked, because, as drawn, it did not require that the particular false representations, supposed by the instruction to have been made, should be negatived by the proof. In this respect, the instruction was modified by the court, so as to make it correct. The court further modified the instruction, by inserting, in reference to the representations, the following words: \u201c And that they were made by the defendant to deceive and defraud the plaintiff, the defendant well knowing them to be untrue.\"\nThe first instruction given for the defendant required that he should have \u201c been guilty of intentional fraud or deceit, in the sale of the wool,\u201d in order to justify a verdict against him.\nThe second instruction for the defendant was to the effect that the plaintiff could not recover \u201c unless the representations were made fraudulently, with the design to injure the plaintiff.\u201d\nThe subject matter of the representations in question was as to the good condition of a load of wool, done up in fleeces, which the defendant brought to market and sold to the plaintiff; the wool being apparently in good condition, and its bad condition, as testified to by the plaintiff\u2019s witnesses, was not discoverable until after the fleeces of wool had been subsequently opened. Upon undoing the fleeces, as was testified to on the part of the plaintiff, the wool was found to be valueless as a merchantable lot of wool. In 33 of the fleeces there were found to be 84 pounds of extraneous substances, some of the fleeces having between four and five pounds of such matter done up in a \u201cball form,\u201d and put into the center of the fleeces.\nCertainly nothing more was here required to entitle the plaintiff to a recovery than that the defendant should have known the alleged false representations to be untrue. Corbett v. Brown, 8 Bing. 33; Foster v. Charles, 6 id. 396; 7 id. 105. In the last case it was said by Tendal, C. J \u201cIt is fraud, in law, if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues, although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad;\u201d and see Stone v. Benny, 4 Met. 151; Bennet v. Judson, 21 N. Y. 238.\nThe defendant\u2019s second instruction, in full, is as follows:\n\u201cThe court instructs the jury, on the part of the defendant, that in this case, although they may believe from the evidence that the defendant sold to the plaintiff the wool mentioned in the declaration in this case, and received his pay therefor of the plaintiff at the time of such sale; and that at the time of the sale, the defendant represented to the plaintiff that the wool so sold was good and merchantable wool, and done up in a clean and proper manner, with nothing in it but the ordinary-tags belonging to each fleece, and that the plaintiff purchased said wool relying upon such representations ; and that in fact said wool was not, at the time of said sale and representations, good and merchantable, but had done up in it other wool, such as dead or pulled wool and dirt, and other substances, aside from the ordinary tags of the fleeces composing said lot of wool, unless such representations were made fraudulently, with the design to injure the plaintiff, the plaintiff can not recover in this action, and the law is for the defendant.\u201d\nIn Stone v. Denny, supra, it was laid down that fraud will be inferred when the party makes a representation which he knows-to be false, or as to which he has no knowledge or information, and no grounds for expressing his belief. This instruction virtually forbids the jury from drawing the inference of fraud from the making of knowingly false representations. If the representations were false in the particulars named, the defendant must, from the very nature of the case, have known them to be false.\nYet the jury are told that although thej might believe the representations were made, and that they were false in the manner stated, still the plaintiff could not recover, unless the representations were made with the design to injure the plaintiff.\nThere was no attempt at excuse for the representations as having been innocently made. The only point of controversy, so far as the evidence discloses, was whether any misrepresentations were in fact made. The condition of the wool, if it was such as described by plaintiff\u2019s witnesses, of itself manifested a base fraud.\nThe instructions were well calculated to mislead the jury, and give them to understand that it was not enough to prove the falsity of the representations in the respects named in the second instruction, even though the defendant knew them to be false, but that there must have been proof, in addition, of a distinct purpose to injure the plaintiff.\nSo far as the instructions required proof to be made of a design to injure the plaintiff as essential to the right of recovery, we regard them as erroneous.\nThe judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Sheldon"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. W. S. Seaels, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Upton & Williams, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William M. Case v. John B. Ayers.\n1. Fraud and deceit\u2014what necessm-y to constitute, in sale of goods. In an action by the vendee, against the vendor of a load of wool, done up in fleeces, for fraudulent representations as to the quality and condition of the wool, the court, in effect, instructed the jury that although they might believe the representations were made, and that they were false in the manner stated, still the plaintiff could not recover, unless the representations were made with the design to injure the plaintiff: Held, that such instruction was erroneous, and well calculated to mislead the jury.\n3. Where the vendor of goods makes a representation respecting the quality or condition of the articles sold, which he must, from the very nature of the case, have known to be false, whereby injury results to the purchaser, it will be a fraud in law, on the part of the vendor, and proof of a fraudulent design to injure the purchaser is not necessary to entitle him to recover.\n3. And it seems that fraud will be inferred where a party makes a representation as to which he has no knowledge or infiftmation, and no grounds for expressing his belief, if injury results from the falsity of such representation.\n4. Same \u2014fraudulent representations must he negatived in the proof. In a suit by a purchaser to recover damages of a seller of personal property, on the ground of false and fraudulent representations respecting the property, an instrtiction, on the part of the plaintiff, which does not require the particular false representations supposed to have been made to be negatived by the proof, will be properly refused.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Lake county; the Hon. Erastus S. Williams, Judge, presiding.\nMr. W. S. Seaels, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Upton & Williams, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0142-01",
  "first_page_order": 142,
  "last_page_order": 146
}