Bolduc v. Therrien

Decision Date27 August 1951
Citation147 Me. 39,83 A.2d 126
CourtMaine Supreme Court
PartiesBOLDUC v. THERRIEN.

Simon Spill, Biddeford, for plaintiff.

Francis J. LaFountaine, Biddeford, for defendant.

Before MURCHIE, C. J., and THAXTER, FELLOWS, MERRILL, NULTY and WILLIAMSON, JJ.

NULTY, Justice.

This is an action of tort for deceit brought by plaintiff against the defendant to recover damages arising out of alleged misrepresentations in the purchase and sale of real estate. The defendant filed a plea of general issue. It comes before us on exceptions by the plaintiff to the granting of a motion for a directed verdict for the defendant at the January 1951 Term of the York County Superior Court. The bill of exceptions contained two exceptions but the only exception now pressed is the claim of the plaintiff that the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant. The declaration, omitting certain parts thereof, alleges that the defendant 'did falsely and fraudulently represent to said plaintiff, a layman inexperienced in house construction and known to the defendant to be such, that said dwelling house was well built, that the cellar was dry, that the roof and foundation were built in best workmanship manner and best material, and that weather proof paper was used wherever necessary in said house; that the plaintiff relying upon said statements and representations of the defendant made to him, and believing each of them to be true, not knowing or having any reason to believe that they were in fact false and not true, was thereby induced to purchase the said house at said price as stated aforesaid; and the plaintiff further alleges that the said defendant, a building contractor, having built said house, knew or ought to have known that the statements made by him were not true as represented by him to said plaintiff in that the roof is without proper support, that said building does not have weather proof paper, that said foundation was not built in good workmanship manner and with best material, that the cement blocks and mortar are cracking, that the window casings and door casings were improperly installed, that the wood posts are sagging, and said house was not well built, all of such defects causing damage to the rest of the building, namely, floors, doors and other parts of the house being drawn out of line, said cellar was wet and otherwise defective, all of said defects were not apparent or subject to examination and due to faulty workmanship and insufficient and improper material, * * *.'

The facts, briefly, are that the plaintiff was interested in purchasing a house for himself and his grandchildren with whom he had been living. The defendant was a building contractor of considerable experience who in the course of his business was selling houses which he had built. The house in question was built by the defendant under his direct personal supervision and finished in April, 1948. The plaintiff met the defendant on May 19, 1948, and together they examined the house in question. The plaintiff became interested in the house but the price was too high and after further negotiations the defendant agreed to sell the house to the plaintiff for $8,000 and plaintiff made a down payment of $2,000. A few days later a deed from the defendant to the plaintiff was made, executed and delivered to the plaintiff.

The alleged misrepresentations which are the basis of this action arise out of conversations between the plaintiff and defendant at the time the premises in question were examined. The plaintiff informed the defendant that he knew nothing about house construction and that he would have to rely entirely upon the defendant for information. In the course of the examination of the house the plaintiff learned from the defendant that it was a one story house with an unfinished attic which the plaintiff did not see, being informed by the defendant that it was not necessary for him to see it as it was unfinished with no floor, and, upon further inquiry by the plaintiff with respect to the trap door leading to the open attic, the defendant said in substance--you are buying just a one story house and you do not deed to worry about the roof. You have no business there. You can't put anything there; there is no floor or nothing. It developed at the time of the examination that there was considerable water in the cellar which the defendant explained by saying that it had been raining pretty hard for a couple of months. The plaintiff was told and he saw that there was an electric pump installed in the cellar for the purpose of pumping out the water. He also received the information that the foundation was cement blocks with the statement by the defendant in substance that he (the defendant) built all his houses with cement blocks and that they were satisfactory. The plaintiff stated to the defendant that he expected to have something good and the defendant stated that this house has paper under the shingles and the roof is new and I built it and when I say I built something it is built. Defendant further stated that the house was insulated all around, including good nice paper under the clapboards. The evidence on the part of the plaintiff discloses that the plaintiff informed the defendant that he was trusting the defendant because of his lack of knowledge and the defendant replied to the effect that when he (the defendant) said something he said it and that it (the house) is built and it is right. After the deed was delivered plaintiff went into possession of the premises, the water disappeared and everything, according to the record, seemed to be in order, but late in the Fall of 1948 water again began to appear in the cellar and the plaintiff noticed wet spots on the ceiling of his bedroom. Plaintiff also noticed that the floors had begun to sag and that the doors would not close and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Savell v. Hayward
    • United States
    • Maine Superior Court
    • 27 d5 Fevereiro d5 2015
    ...must relate to a fact which directly affects the value of the property sold.'" Mariello, 667 A.2d at 590 (citing Bolduc v. Thernen, 147 Me. 39, 43, 83 A.2d 126, 129 (1951)). ...
  • Arundel Valley, LLC v. Branch River Plastics, Inc.
    • United States
    • Maine Superior Court
    • 20 d1 Março d1 2017
    ...must relate to a fact which directly affects the value of the property sold.'" Mariello, 667 A.2d at 590 (citing Bolduc v. Therrien, 147 Me. 39, 43, 83 A.2d 126, 129 (1951)). 25. Each of the above elements must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Butler v. Poulin, 500 A.2d 257, 260 ......
  • Arundel Valley, LLC v. Branch River Plastics, Inc.
    • United States
    • Maine Superior Court
    • 5 d3 Novembro d3 2014
    ...must relate to a fact which directly affects the value of the property sold.'" Mariello, 667 A.2d at 590 (citing Bolduc v. Therrien, 147 Me. 39, 43, 83 A.2d 126, 129 (1951)). 19. Each of the above elements must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Butler v. Poulin, 500 A.2d 257, 260 ......
  • Cyr v. Cote
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 26 d5 Janeiro d5 1979
    ...under art. I, § 20. Plaintiffs might indeed have a cogent argument were they seriously pressing their deceit claim. See Bolduc v. Therrien, 147 Me. 39, 83 A.2d 126 (1951); Crossman v. Bacon & Robinson Co., 119 Me. 105, 109 A. 487 (1920). Here, however, their pre-trial memorandum omitted dec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT