92 N.E. 670 (1910)
The record showed that the buyer stated to the seller that he desired to purchase a portion of her vacant lot for the purpose of building a dwelling or dwellings thereon. The seller's true intention was to build a garage on the lot.
- On appeal from the seller's claim against the buyer, the court determined that the buyer must have known that if he induced the seller to convey to him such portion of the lot, it would injure the seller to an extent in excess of the full consideration to be paid by him.
- The court held that the buyer's intent was a material existing fact in the case and that the seller's reliance upon such fact induced her to enter into a contract that she would not otherwise have entered into.
- The court found that the buyer's statement was so made for the purpose of inducing the seller to convey to him the lot, and that the buyer made the statement falsely, fraudulently and purposely.
- The court held that any contract induced by fraud as to a matter material to the party defrauded was voidable, thus the conclusion of law that the seller was entitled to a rescission of the contract and deed was the necessary and logical result of the facts found.
The judgment was affirmed.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.