Nichols Et. Al. v. Pinner and Michael

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's judgment and ordered a new trial, holding that a purchaser's mere nondisclosure of insolvency does not constitute fraud sufficient to void a sale. The court emphasized that fraud must be proved affirmatively with an intent to cheat and some deceptive act, and that the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury that concealment of insolvency alone is not fraudulent. Justice Roosevelt's opinion was joined by a concurrence, while a dissent argued the purchase was fraudulent. Justice Roosevelt, dissenting, would have held the sale voidable.