
    VEIL v. THOMPSON et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    December 24, 1914.)
    Fbaud (§ 11)—Representations—Statements of Fact—Opinion.
    A representation by a seller of bonds that no other bonds of the issue were on the market, and that they were shortly to be retired at an advance price, were representations of fact, and not of opinion, and a buyer, relying thereon, could recover, on proving falsity of the representations and damages.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Fraud, Cent. Dig. §§ 12, 13; Dec. Dig. § ll.*l
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
    Action by Jacob Henry Veil against Arthur V. R. Thompson and another, doing business under the firm name and style of Thompson & Singleton. From an order of the Municipal Court, setting aside a verdict for plaintiff, he appeals. Reversed, and verdict reinstated.
    Argued December term, 1914, before GUY, BIJUR, and PAGE, JJ.
    Wise & Seligsberg, of New York City, for appellant.
    Stuart M. Kohn, of New York City (Leon Kauffman, of New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to Sate, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages for false representaalleged to made by defendants, relying upon which the plaintiff bought certain bonds, to his loss as proved. The representations proved to have been made by defendants were that no other bonds of this issue were on the market, and that they were shortly to be retired at an advanced price. These representations were of facts which were material, and warranted the recovery which the jury awarded. They were not representations as to matters of opinion, and the verdict should not have been set aside.

Order reversed, with costs, and verdict reinstated, with costs. All concur.  