Bartlett v. Bonazzi

• Decision Date: 19 January 1917
• Citation: 91 Vt. 192,99 A. 886
• Parties: BARTLETT et al. v. BONAZZI.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

99 A. 886

91 Vt. 192

BARTLETT et al.

v. BONAZZI.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Washington.

Jan. 19, 1917.

Exceptions from Washington County Court; Frank L. Fish, Judge.

Action by Edward D. Bartlett and another against Antonio Bonazzi. From the overruling of a demurrer to the declaration, the defendant brings exceptions. Affirmed and remanded for trial upon the merits.

Argued before MUNSON, C. J., and WATSON, HASELTON, POWERS, and TAYLOR, JJ.

John W. Gordon, of Barre, and Harrison J. Conant, of Montpelier, for plaintiffs. Edward H. Deavitt and Fred L. Laird, both of Montpelier, for defendant.

HASELTON, J. This is an action on the case for fraud and deceit. It has once been here for the consideration of a plea in abatement which was held bad. 90 Vt. —, 98 Atl. 80. The declaration is in four counts, two original, and two amended. The defendant when the case was remanded demurred to each count for causes assigned. The demurrer was overruled by the court below, the defendant excepted, and the case was passed to this court before trial on the merits.

The case stated in each count is, with some variations, in brief, this: The defendant knowingly made material and detailed misrepresentations, particularly set out, as to existing facts affecting the financial condition and ability of a firm of which he was a member, and thereby induced the plaintiffs, who relied upon the representations and believed them to be true, to become sureties upon notes of the defendant's firm which the sureties were obliged to pay.

One ground of the demurrer is that the misrepresentations were not actionable. But as their character was as above stated they were actionable, as has frequently been decided. Darling v. Stuart, 63 Vt. 570, 22 Atl. 634; Childs v. Merrill, 63 Vt. 463, 22 Atl. 626, 14 L. R. A. 264; Johnson v. Cate, 75 Vt. 100, 53 Atl. 329; Corey v. Boynton, 82 Vt. 257, 72 Atl. 987; Belka v. Allen, 82 Vt. 457, 465, 74 Atl. 91; Crompton v. Beedle, 83 Vt. 287, 75 Atl. 331, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 748, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 399; Adams v. Ladeau, 84 Vt. 460, 79 Atl. 996; Howton v. Strout Farm Agency, 90 Vt. 50, 96 Atl. 330. In Fisher v. Brown, 1 Tyler, 387, 4 Am. Dec. 726, and in Dyer v. Tilton, 23 Vt. 313, it is held broadly that an action on the case will not lie for misrepresentations as to one's own existing financial circumstances. The cases have been criticized and departed from. See Childs v. Merrill, 63 Vt. 463, 471, 472, 473, 474, 22 Atl. 626, 14 L. R. A. 264, and upon the point above noted are now expressly overruled.

The plaintiff's loss through the fraud of the defendant was, according to the declaration, somewhat reduced by what the plaintiffs realized from chattel mortgage security taken by them. The defendant claims that the plaintiffs could not realize on the chattel mortgage without waiving the fraud. That if they wished to rely upon the fraud they should have returned the chattel mortgage security, that by realizing on the chattel mortgage they elected not to rescind. But it was not necessary to...