Mccaleer V. Horsey 35 Md

[N]either the common law nor any code of human law seeks to enforce the rule of perfect morality declared by divine authority, which acknowledges as its one principle the duty of doing to others as we would that others should do to us, and which, by consequence, absolutely excludes and prohibits all cunning and craft or astuteness practiced by any one for his own exclusive benefit. And it thence follows that a certain amount of selfish cunning passes unrecognized by Courts of justice, and that a man may procure to himself, in his dealings with others, some advantages to which he has no moral right, but to which he may succeed in establishing a perfect legal title. But if any one carries this too far: if by craft and selfish contrivance he inflicts an injury upon his neighbor and acquires a benefit to himself beyond a certain point. The law steps in, annuls all that he has done, or rectifies the wrong by sustaining an action for deceit. The practical question then is, where is this point? And to this no specific answer is afforded.

McAleer v. Horsey, 35 Md. 429, 451-52 (1872). …show more content…
Supply of Md., Inc. v. Guardian Door and Window, Inc., 156 Md. App. 445, 455 (2004). In this action, Ndeumeni does not appear to argue that the factual findings made by the trial judge were clearly erroneous. Rather, Ndeumeni argues that when viewing the factual findings made by the trial judge in the aggregate, Kemogne has failed to make a prima facie case for fraud. Specifically at issue in this action is whether there was sufficient evidence for a fact-finder to reasonably infer that Ndeumeni acted with the requisite intent to commit fraud when he made the statement at