PENCE V. LANGDON, 99 U. S. 578 (1878)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 99 U. S. 578

U.S. Supreme Court

Pence v. Langdon, 99 U.S. 578 (1878)

Pence v. Langdon

99 U.S. 578


1. The jury should not be instructed to find for the defendant unless the evidence is such as to leave no doubt that it is their duty to return a verdict in his favor.

2. The notice of the rescission of a contract is not rendered void by reason of the fact that it was given in Nevada on Sunday.

3. The vendee of stock in a company, who, on the ground of fraud, rescinded his contract of purchase, is not bound to receive the stock certificate left on deposit for him by the vendor, and tender it to the latter before bringing his action for the purchase money.

4. The court submitted to the jury to determine whether from certain letters and telegrams, when considered in connection with the other evidence in the case, the defendant undertook to act as the agent of the plaintiff in the purchase of stock from other parties. The jury found, and the letters clearly showed, that he did undertake so to act. Held that the omission of the court to construe the written evidence, if erroneous, affords him no just cause of complaint.

5. Where the plaintiff's knowledge of the fraud and his neglect to promptly rescind the contract are relied on to defeat the action, the burden of proving the fact of such knowledge and the time when it was acquired rests upon the defendant.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :