Spaulding v. Knight

• Decision Date: 22 October 1874
• Parties: Reuben Spaulding v. William S. Knight
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

116 Mass. 148

Reuben Spaulding v. William S. Knight

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

October 22, 1874

[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Worcester. Tort. The first count alleged in substance that the defendant contriving and intending to cheat and defraud the plaintiff, fraudulently and unlawfully conspired and confederated with Samue K. Elliott to injure, cheat and defraud the plaintiff by passing to him as collateral security for a loan of money, a false, fraudulent, forged and fictitious promissory note of a certain tenor [setting it forth]; that Elliott delivered the note to the plaintiff, representing it to be a good and valid note, although the defendant and Elliott well knew it to be false, forged, fictitious and of no value; that the plaintiff relying upon said statement, and believing the note to be a valid security, delivered to Elliott a large sum of money and a promissory note payable to the defendant's order, and the defendant and Elliott shared the money and note between themselves, and the plaintiff was cheated, injured and defrauded.

The second count alleged that the defendant, with intent to defraud the plaintiff, unlawfully and fraudulently conspired with said Elliott to injure, cheat and defraud the plaintiff by means of a certain false, forged and fraudulent promissory note of the tenor set forth in the first count; that the defendant and Elliott pretended to the plaintiff that Elliott wished to borrow of the plaintiff a large sum of money, and would furnish ample security for such loan, and the plaintiff believing and trusting to said pretences agreed to loan to Elliott said money upon good collateral security, and Elliott thereupon made, forged and counterfeited the said note for the purpose of passing the same to the plaintiff as security for said pretended loan, and Elliott and the defendant falsely represented to the plaintiff that the note was a good and valid security, well knowing the same to be false, fraudulent and counterfeited, and of no value; that the plaintiff, believing the note to be valid, and trusting to and relying upon the said false and fraudulent representations, the defendant then and there intending that the plaintiff should so trust and rely upon said representations, did loan and deliver to Elliott a large sum of money and a promissory note signed by the defendant, and received as collateral security therefor said false, fraudulent and counterfeited promissory note; that the plaintiff by the premises was defrauded and injured.

There were also two counts for false representations, and one in trover. Trial in the Superior Court, before Allen J., who after a verdict for the plaintiff allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:

There was evidence tending to show a combination and conspiracy between the defendant and Elliott as alleged in the first and second counts. The defendant, a broker, introduced evidence tending to show that the plaintiff took as security for a loan of eight hundred dollars to Elliott, due bills of the Weed Sewing Machine Company of the apparent value of seven hundred and seventy dollars from Elliott, who gave his note payable to the plaintiff in thirty days for the loan; that after the loan was made and the transaction fully completed, the plaintiff applied to Elliott for additional security for his loan and received therefor a promissory note purporting to be signed by one John Ward. It was admitted in evidence that the plaintiff retained the said due bills as security for said loan and had them in his possession at the time of the trial but refused to produce them upon the defendant's request, to be used in evidence. To show the validity of said due bills as security for said loan the defendant offered to show that one Sibley had loaned money to Elliott, taking the same due bills as security therefor, and that at the time of said loan by the plaintiff part of said due bills were held by Sibley as security for loans, but this evidence was rejected by the court.

The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that the defendant, who was a broker, made certain verbal representations to the plaintiff concerning the conduct, character, credit, ability and dealings of Elliott to enable Elliott to obtain the loan from the plaintiff, to wit: that Elliott owned western lands, was largely engaged in the sale of sewing machines, and had always promptly paid loans; that the defendant and Sibley had loaned him money; that Elliott had purchased real estate of one Buttrick; that he was desirous of borrowing $ 800 from the plaintiff, and would furnish ample security; and that the defendant considered Elliott had ample means and was good. The plaintiff testified that he relied upon Elliott's ability as represented by the defendant in making the loan; that he believed the due bills to be good when he received them as security for his loan, and agreed to make the loan to Elliott upon these representations of the defendant to him.

The defendant requested the court to rule that if the plaintiff relied upon the verbal representations of the defendant, and by reason of said representations agreed to loan and did loan the alleged amount, the action could not be maintained, but the request so to rule was refused as wholly immaterial.

Elliott, who was a witness for the plaintiff, testified that the defendant agreed to assist him to take up his note to the plaintiff when it became due and that he intended to pay it, and there was also evidence tending to show that the defendant intended the note should be paid when due.

The defendant requested the court to rule that if the jury believed that the defendant intended that Elliott's note to the plaintiff should be paid when due they must find for the defendant, although the defendant and Elliott combined together to obtain the alleged loan, but the presiding judge declined so to rule.

The evidence was conflicting as to whether or not the Ward note passed to the plaintiff at the time of the delivery of the money loaned by the plaintiff to Elliott, or was taken by the plaintiff as additional security after the loan was made. It was admitted that the Ward note was forged by Elliott, and the evidence was conflicting as to whether the defendant knew said note to be a forgery; and it was also admitted that the defendant represented to the plaintiff that he knew nothing about the forged note or John Ward, the apparent maker of the same, which was the only representation as to the forged note sought to be proved against the defendant.

The defendant requested the court to rule that if the jury are satisfied that the defendant made false representations to the plaintiff concerning his knowledge of the Ward note and that the defendant was so situated at the time said note was made and passed to the plaintiff as to have had reasonable cause to believe said note was forged, and that the representations made by him to the plaintiff were false, yet if he did not absolutely know such note was forged or such representations false when made, the jury should find for the defendant; but this request was not granted.

There was also evidence tending to show that the plaintiff had received a large amount of western land from Elliott in payment of said loan, since the date of the writ. The defendant put in evidence a certain receipt showing the amount of money to be paid by the plaintiff to Elliott for certain western land, the deed of which was sent to the plaintiff with the receipt, which receipt was admitted in evidence. The defendant then offered as evidence to prove the value of the lands received by the plaintiff and the responsibility of Elliott, the proof of certain deeds sent by express to the plaintiff by Elliott's agent,...