Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Thomsen v. Mill, 248 S.W.2d 6 (1952)

Citation
Thomsen v. Mill, 248 S.W.2d 6 (1952)
Parent Document
Thomsen v. Mill, 248 S.W.2d 6 (1952)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1952-03-03

Full Text

839 chars
Unlike the case at bar, the petitions in the Powers and Bedell cases plainly did not arise under the National Housing Act and there was no contention that they did. The Act was only incidentally involved in both, and the abuse of its provisions was merely incidental as forming a link in the alleged fraudulent representations to the plaintiffs, which were the real bases of the suits for fraud and deceit at common law. As said in the Bedell case, supra, 242 S.W.2d at page 575, quoting from a previous case, Teare v. Sussman, 120 Colo. 488, 210 P.2d 446, "`It was not necessary that * * * the Office of Price Administration be defrauded into authorizing eviction. Such action * * of the Office of Price Administration, if procured, would be relevant * * * only as evidence of further, but not necessary, steps in the scheme to defraud.'"