Walter S. Hubbell, Appellant v. Charles A. Meigs, Respondents

Summary

The Court of Appeals held that a General Term need not specify particular factual errors when reversing a judgment; it may review both law and fact de novo, that fraud requires proof of the maker's knowledge of falsity, that a party who induces purchase of worthless stock is liable regardless of who sold it, that damages are measured by the difference between the stock's true worth and the fraudulent representation, and that a General Term may reverse judgment as to some joint defendants and affirm as to others.