Brown v. Kimball

• Decision Date: 04 February 1892
• Citation: 24 A. 847,84 Me. 280
• Parties: BROWN et al. v. KIMBALL.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

24 A. 847

84 Me. 280

BROWN et al.

v. KIMBALL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Feb. 4, 1892.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Oxford county.

Action by Hannibal G. Brown and another against J. Wayland Kimball. On report. Judgment for defendant.

J. P. Swasey and J. S. Wright, for plaintiffs.

Charles F. Libby and George A. Wilson, for defendant.

PETERS, C. J. The plaintiffs declare against the defendant in an action of deceit, alleging that the defendant represented that a corporation, styled the "J. Wayland Kimball Company," had a cash capital of $40,000 paid in; that he was himself worth in property $80,000; that the corporation was solvent and able to pay all its indebtedness, and was all right; that these representations were false, and known by the defendant to be so; that they were made by the defendant to induce the plaintiffs to give credit to the corporation; and that they (the plaintiffs) were induced thereby to give the credit sought for, taking the worthless notes of the corporation instead of money which would otherwise have been paid to them for goods purchased by such corporation. The representations were oral. It is also alleged that the defendant was at the time president and general agent of the corporation.

The defendant contends that the action cannot be maintained, because the facts alleged bring the case within that section of the statute of frauds (Rev. St. c. 111, § 3) which provides that "no action shall be maintained to charge any person by reason of any representation or assurance, concerning the character, conduct, credit, ability, trade, or dealings of another, unless made in writing, and signed by the party to be charged thereby, or some person by him legally authorized." The defendant duly pleaded the statute in defense.

This section of the statute of frauds applies to cases where the representations are made for the purpose of obtaining a credit for the person in relation to whom the words are spoken. Hunter v. Randall, 62 Me. 423. It is immaterial that the party making the representations has an additional purpose of obtaining an indirect benefit to himself from the transaction. Mann v. Blanchard, 2 Allen, 386. Therefore it adds nothing to the charge that the defendant at the time of the representations was the leading officer of the corporation, in the legal sense, he was representing the credit of the corporation for its benefit, and not for his own. McKinney v. Whiting, 8 Allen, 207. And the defendant's objection to the declaration is that it avers that the...