Skip to main content

Cassity v. Wilson

Unknown CourtJune 29, 1915Cited 1 time
Plaintiff WinWilson (coal mine operator)$3,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Benson, Burnett, McBride, Moore
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed a $3,000 judgment for the widow of a coal miner killed by a runaway coal car in the employer's mine, finding the employer grossly negligent for sending heavy loaded cars down an incline without lights, attendants, brakes, or warning signals.

Excerpt

From Multnomah.: William N. G-atens, Judge. Department 1. Statement by Mr. Justice McBride. This is an action brought by F. A. Cassity against Ben H. Wilson, Ada S. Wilson and F. B. Stratton, alleging that defendants entered into a conspiracy to mislead and defraud him concerning certain patents and patent rights controlled by them, which they represented had been transferred to the Twin Manufacturing Company, a corporation. The complaint asserts that defendants falsely represented that if the plaintiff would so invest large profits would be made; that, to induce him to take a commission contract, the services of one J. H. Jefferson were secured to act as a partner with plaintiff, the defendants falsely pretending that said Jefferson would put a like sum into the business; that plaintiff, relying upon the representations thus made, did advance $750 and gave his note for $500, and Jefferson, at the instance of defendants and for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff, gave a check on the United States National Bank for $750 and his note for $500, which check was alleged to be worthless and known to be so by defendants at the time it was given. Plaintiff further avers that defendant Wilson, in pursuance of the conspiracy, agreed to go into partnership with him, and that he went north to Vancouver, B. C., and Seattle, at the behest of Wilson, to secure a location; that said Wilson did not carry out his agreement, and plaintiff was compelled to return to Portland with loss of much money and.time. To this defendants Ada S. Wilson and F. D. Stratton file a general denial; and defendant Ben H. Wilson, in a further and separate answer, alleges that the Twin Manufacturing Company is a corporation, that the contract was made with the corporation, that the money was paid to the corporation, and the officers of the corporation signed and put the seal of the corporation thereon. The case was triecl before the court without a jury, and, from findings and judgment in

What This Ruling Means

**Cassity v. Wilson (1915)** **What Happened:** This case involved a business dispute where F.A. Cassity sued Ben Wilson, Ada Wilson, and F.B. Stratton. Cassity claimed the defendants conspired to mislead and defraud him regarding certain patents and patent rights. The defendants had falsely represented that these patent rights had been transferred to a company called Twin Manufacturing Company. **What the Court Decided:** The court ruled in favor of Cassity, finding that the defendants had indeed engaged in fraudulent conduct. Cassity was awarded $3,000 in damages for the harm caused by the defendants' deceptive actions regarding the patent rights. **Why This Matters for Workers:** While this case primarily deals with business fraud rather than traditional employment issues, it demonstrates that courts will hold people accountable when they use deceptive practices to harm others financially. For workers, this reinforces the principle that employers and business partners cannot use false representations or conspiracy to cheat people out of money or business opportunities. The ruling shows that victims of such schemes can seek compensation through the courts when they've been wronged.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.