Cora E. Crompton v. Albert H. Beedle And A. B. Thomas

• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HASELTON
• Citation: Cora E. Crompton v. Albert H. Beedle And A. B. Thomas, 75 A. 331, 83 Vt. 287 (Vt. 1910)
• Decision Date: 16 February 1910
• Parties: CORA E. CROMPTON v. ALBERT H. BEEDLE AND A. B. THOMAS

75 A. 331

83 Vt. 287

CORA E. CROMPTON v. ALBERT H. BEEDLE AND A. B. THOMAS

Supreme Court of Vermont

February 16, 1910

January Term, 1910.

APPEAL IN CHANCERY. Orange County. Heard at Chambers, November 25 1909, on demurrer to the bill, Taylor, Chancellor. Demurrer sustained, bill adjudged insufficient and dismissed with costs. The oratrix appealed. The opinion states the case.

The result is that the decree sustaining the demurrer and adjudging the bill insufficient is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Cowles & Moulton and March M. Wilson for the oratrix.

Present MUNSON, WATSON, HASELTON, and POWERS, JJ.

OPINION

HASELTON

The oratrix in this cause, a resident of Worcester Massachusetts, sets out in her bill as amended that, at a time named, she was the owner in fee simple of a farm in Randolph in this State; that she purchased the farm for the use of a relative and had herself never been in Randolph, and had never seen the farm and was ignorant of its true value; that there was and is an undeveloped and valuable granite quarry in and under the pasture of the farm but that at the time named she had no knowledge of such quarry. She further sets out that at the time in question, which was October 22, 1908, the defendant Beedle, called upon her in Worcester and stated that he desired to buy the pasture mentioned, and that she told him that she did not know the value of the pasture apart from the farm; that thereupon the defendant Beedle told her that the pasture was poor and of comparatively little value; that it adjoined some land that belonged to him, and that the only way of access to the pasture was over his land, and that it annoyed him and his family to have his land gone over for such access; and that that was the only reason why he desired to purchase the pasture. The oratrix alleges that she thereupon asked Mr. Beedle to consult with one Thayer, who was her attorney, and that Mr. Beedle thereupon called upon Thayer and represented that the pasture was worth not more than $ 400, and that he was familiar with the value of lands in Randolph; that he repeated to Thayer, as his sole reason for wishing to buy the pasture, the reason which he had given to the oratrix; that Beedle further represented to Thayer that he had no plan or scheme in regard to the purchase of the land other than he had stated, and that he represented to the attorney that the fair value of the entire farm was $ 4,000.

The oratrix alleges that the defendant Beedle acted in partnership with the defendant Thomas, in the purchase of the farm and in the negotiations in respect thereto, and that in those regards he was the agent of the defendant Thomas; that he made the representations stated in behalf of himself and of the defendant Thomas; and the oratrix further alleges that the defendants knew of the existence of the granite quarry and knew that she was ignorant of its existence, that the representations made as above stated were false and were known to the defendants to be false and were fraudulently made for the purpose of inducing her to sell the farm to the defendants at a price much less than its true value and for the purpose of inducing her to forbear inquiry as to the existence and value of the granite quarry and as to the value of the farm as affected thereby; that the pasture was not, as represented, of little value, $ 400, but $ 15,000, that the reason of the desired purchase was not that given, but that the existence of the quarry was such reason, and that the defendants had a plan or scheme in regard to the purchase of the land, which was to develop the quarry or to sell the farm at a great price by reason of the quarry, and that $ 4,000 was not the fair value of the farm, but that it was of much greater value, of the value of $ 20,000. The oratrix further alleges that she relied upon the representations made to her and her attorney, and that in reliance thereon, and not otherwise, on the day named she gave the defendant Beedle an option to purchase the entire farm for $ 4,000, and that about a month thereafter, at the request of the defendant Beedle, and in reliance upon the representations already set forth she deeded the farm to the defendants. The oratrix alleges that in reliance upon the representations made, as stated, she was induced to forbear, and did forbear, inquiry as to the real value of the farm and as to the existence, or value, of the quarry, and that she would not have sold the farm as she did if she had known of the existence of the quarry. The oratrix tenders the defendants the purchase price of the farm and prays that they may be ordered to re-convey the farm free of incumbrance upon payment to them of the purchase price. Other prayers appropriate to the special relief sought are made, and the bill contains a prayer for general relief. The defendants answering deny the material allegations of the bill, and incorporate into their answer a demurrer to the bill.

The case was heard on the demurrer, and, after allowing amendments, the court of chancery sustained the demurrer, adjudged the bill insufficient and decreed that it be dismissed with costs to the defendants. The oratrix appealed. Some of the allegations of the bill are made on information and belief, but there is a distinction between such allegations and allegations of information and belief merely and the averments on information and belief are of things which may properly be pleaded in that way. So the recitals hereinbefore made are to be taken as true. Watkins v. Childs, 80 Vt. 99, 66 A. 805; Quinn v. Valiquette, 80 Vt. 434, 68 A. 515, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 962.

In an early Pennsylvania case cited by the defendants it is said that "concealment on the part of the vendee is a novel objection." But the question presented has, in its various aspects, been discussed for many centuries. Cicero puts the case of one who buys for a trifle, gold, which the seller, in his ignorance, supposes to be brass; and he moots similar questions regarding sales of personal property and of real estate as well. But we pass over the discussions of the ethical writers and the civilians, discussions which are in some cases luminous and in others obscure. It has long been settled in common law jurisdictions that, in general, the mere failure of a buyer to disclose something extrinsic or intrinsic to the thing bought, known to him and not known to the seller, is not in legal sense fraud. Fox v. Mackreth, 2 Brown Ch. 420; Harris v. Tyson, 24 Pa. 347, 64 Am. Dec. 661; Smith v. Beatty, 2 Iredell's Eq. 456, 40 Am. Dec. 435.

In Laidlaw v. Organ, 15 U.S. 178, 2 Wheat 178, 4 L.Ed. 214, it appeared that in February, 1815, the defendant got, through private sources, news of our Treaty of Peace with England, of which the plaintiffs were ignorant and that without disclosing the news the defendant bought of the plaintiffs one hundred and eleven hogsheads of tobacco the price of which was greatly enhanced by news of the peace. It appeared that the plaintiffs inquired, in the course of the transaction, if there was any news calculated to enhance the value of tobacco and that no reply was made to their inquiry. In the district court it was held as matter of law, that there could be no recovery. Chief Justice Marshall in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court said: "The question in this case is, whether the intelligence of extrinsic circumstances which might influence the price of the commodity, and which was exclusively within the knowledge of the vendee, ought to have been communicated by him to the vendor. The court is of opinion that he was not bound to communicate it. It would be difficult to circumscribe the contrary doctrine within proper limits where the means of intelligence are equally accessible to both parties. But at the same time each party must take care not to say or do anything tending to impose upon the other." In accordance with these views the court held that in the circumstances disclosed it was a question of fact whether any imposition was practiced by the vendee upon the vendor, and so the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded. This case arose in Louisiana, and in view of the eminence of the reporter, the fact should be noted that he puts at the head of the case the designation "local law." But the opinion of the court is based on no principles peculiar to the civil law there prevailing and indeed makes no reference to the civil law. The reversal in that case was, in view of the silence of the party benefitted by the contract, an extreme course. It is so commented on in Lapish v. Wells, 6 Greenl. 188, (Maine) and in Bayard v. Shunk, 1 Watts & Serg. 92, 37 Am. Dec. 441. In Paddock v. Strobridge, 29 Vt. 470, there is a dictum by Chief Judge Redfield to the effect that the disposition of the case was unwarranted. The Paddock case, however, fully recognizes the doctrine of negative deceit, and that there is a wide field for the application of the principle that in some circumstances the suppression of a truth may be equivalent to the assertion of a falsehood. It may be noted that we have it upon unimpeachable authority that Judge Redfield's opinion in Paddock v. Strobridge was prepared by way of dissent, and that by mistake it happened to get printed as the opinion of the court. R. Dig. 125, Vt. Dig. Advance Sheets, 445. However, this Court has since referred to the case as a leading one in this State. Maynard v. Maynard, 49 Vt. 297, 300. In Etting v. Bank of the United States, 24 U.S. 59, 11 Wheat. 59, 6 L.Ed. 419, a case which went to the Supreme Court from the Circuit Court of Maryland, Laidlaw v. Organ was cited in argument and the effect of the concealment or supression of material facts by one party to a contract was the main question under discussion,...