Conant v. Alvord

• Decision Date: 27 May 1896
• Parties: CONANT v. ALVORD et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

166 Mass. 311

44 N.E. 250

CONANT v. ALVORD et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 27, 1896

COUNSEL

Edgar R. Champlin and Charles R. Darling, for plaintiff.

Samuel W. Forrest, for defendants.

OPINION

LATHROP, J.

The only exception which has been argued is to the refusal of the court to give the fourth request for instructions. We are of opinion that the judge was not bound to rule that the words in the acceptance, "agents for the negotiation of within-mentioned loan," were sufficient to put an ordinarily prudent business man on his guard, and to disclose the full scope of the defendants' authority. The act of writing the words: "Accepted Dec. 5, 1892. Cape Ann Savings Bank, by Alvord & Ward,"--was a representation that they had authority from the bank to accept the orders, and the words added after their names cannot be said to set forth that they had no such authority. They are to be construed as a descriptio personarum; and, reading the entire acceptance together, it is plain that the defendants, describing themselves as "agents for the negotiation of within-mentioned loan," represented that they had authority to accept the orders for the Cape Ann Savings Bank. This representation has been found to be untrue. As the plaintiff relied upon the representation, and has suffered injury from the breach of the representation, he has a right of action for such breach, irrespective of the question of fraud on the part of the defendants. This rule of law is well settled. Long v. Colburn, 11 Mass. 97, 98; Ballou v. Talbot, 16 Mass. 463; Jefts v. York, 10 Cush. 392, 395; Draper v. Heating Co., 5 Allen, 338, 339; Bartlett v. Tucker, 104 Mass. 336, 341; May v. Telegraph Co., 112 Mass. 90, 95; Railroad Co. v. Richardson, 135 Mass. 473, 475. See, also, Nash v. Trust Co., 163 Mass. 574, 587, 40 N.E. 1039, per Holmes, J.; Collen v. Wright, 7 El. & Bl. 301, 8 El. & Bl. 647; Spedding v. Nevell, L.R. 4 C.P. 212; Weeks v. Propert, L.R. 8 C.P. 427; Cherry v. Bank, L.R. 3 P.C. 24; In re National Coffee Palace Co., 24 Ch.Div. 367; Richardson v. Williamson, L.R. 6 Q.B. 276; Mountstephen v. Lakeman, L.R. 7 Q.B. 196; Chapleo v. Society, 6 Q.B.Div. 696; Firbank's Ex'rs v. Humphreys, 18 Q.B.Div. 54; White v. Madison, 26 N.Y. 117; Taylor v. Nostrand, 134 N.Y. 108, 31 N.E. 246; Trust Co. v. Floyd, 47 Ohio St. 525, 26 N.E. 110; Patterson v. Lippincott, 47 N.J.Law, 457, 1 A. 506; Russell v. Koonce, 104 N.C. 237, 10 S.E. 256. Exceptions overruled.