Cate v. Blodgett

• Decision Date: 27 July 1900
• Citation: 48 A. 281,70 N.H. 316
• Parties: CATE v. BLODGETT.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

48 A. 281

70 N.H. 316

CATE

v. BLODGETT.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Hillsboro.

July 27, 1900.

Exceptions from Hillsboro county.

Action by Mary Cate against Flora E. Blodgett. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff excepts. Reversed.

The amended declaration alleged that in 1893 the defendant was the owner of a two-tenement house, barn, and shed, the upper tenement of which was rented to the husband of the plaintiff until about June, 1894; that the only clothes yard provided by the defendant for the use of the tenant occupying this tenement was a platform built above the roof of the shed; that the platform at the time of the letting was old, decayed, and out of repair, as the defendant well knew, which information she withheld from the plaintiff; that the plaintiff was led to believe by the false representations of the defendant and did believe, that the platform was in good repair and safe for the purposes for which it was erected, and was not in fault for not discovering its condition; that while the plaintiff was upon the platform it gave way and caused the injuries complained of. The defendant's demurrer to the foregoing declaration was overruled, and she excepted. The plaintiff's counsel stated that he should not offer any evidence tending to show that the defendant had any knowledge of the insecurity or want of repair of the platform, or personally made or authorized the making of any representations concerning it; that the renting of the defendant's premises was done by an agent, who had exclusive charge of all her property; and that the agent knew of the insecurity of the platform from defective construction and want of repair, and falsely represented that it was safe. The plaintiff admitted that the defendant had no knowledge of the dangerous condition of the platform or of the false representations of her agent, and in fact did not authorize them. Upon the foregoing statement and admission a nonsuit was pro forma ordered, and the plaintiff excepted.

Timothy J. Howard and Drury & Hurd, for plaintiff.

Burnham, Brown & Warren, for defendant.

BLODGETT, C. J. It appearing that the agent had the exclusive care and letting of the premises which are the subject-matter of the present action, we are of the opinion that his alleged representations as to the condition of the platform were within the scope of his authority and employment, and are therefore to be treated as the representations of the defendant herself. But while it is a familiar...