Fox v. Tabel

• Decision Date: 22 June 1895
• Citation: 34 A. 101,66 Conn. 397
• Parties: FOX v. TABEL.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

34 A. 101

66 Conn. 397

FOX

v. TABEL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 22, 1895.

Appeal from district court of Waterbury; Root, Judge.

Action by John B. Fox against Minnie Tabel for breach of contract. Defendant pleaded—First, a general denial: second, that she signed the contract relying on plaintiff's representations that he was acting as the authorized agent of a third person and that such representations were false and fraudulent; third_; that the agreement was made with plaintiff as the agent of a third person, and that such third person had released defendant from all liability under the agreement A demurrer to the second and third defenses was overruled, judgment rendered for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirm ed.

Daniel F. Webster, for appellant.

John Coats, for appellee.

BALDWIN, J. The second and third defenses were not demurrable. No man can maintain an action upon an agreement which was confessedly procured by his assertion that he was authorized by another to execute it in his behalf, when such representations were false, and made with intent to deceive and defraud the other contracting party. Nor can it be seriously questioned that, if such representations were true, a release by the principal would be a bar to any action on the contract.

The finding of the district court shows that John Hanna, of New Britain, was a dealer in monuments, and known by reputation to Mrs. Tabel, the defendant, as such; that the plaintiff (who lived in Thomaston, and had formerly been in his employment), on February 23, 1892, in order to procure an order for a monument from the defendant, who lived in Collinsville, represented to her that be was Hanna's agent; that this representation was false, and made with knowledge of its falsity; and that the defendant was thereby induced to believe, when she signed the contract, that she was contracting with Hanna, through the plaintiff, as his agent. The agreement is expressed to be between John B. Fox, of Thomaston, and the defendant, and he signed it simply with his own name. It called for the erection of the monument on July 13, 1892. On May 22, 1892, she learned that the plaintiff was not Hanna's agent, and thereupon ordered another monument from Hanna, on his agreement to save her harmless from any claim on the contract she had made with the plaintiff. On June 7th the plaintiff had a monument at Collinsville, properly lettered and ready to be set up there, in conformity to the terms of the...