Fuller v. Atwood

• Decision Date: 28 November 1883
• Parties: GEORGE F. FULLER v. WILLIAM K. ATWOOD.[1]
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

14 R.I. 293

GEORGE F. FULLER v. WILLIAM K. ATWOOD.^[1]

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

November 28, 1883

In a single undivided and continuous negotiation between A. and B., A. at one time represented one principal and at another time a different one.

Held, that A., notwithstanding the change of principal, was entitled to assume that all statements of fact made to him by B. were repeated so long as they were not corrected.

The negotiation resulted in a written contract signed by the parties.

Held, that statements made by B. after the contract were inadmissible to show what influenced A.'s principal to sign the contract, but were admissible to corroborate evidence as to what statements B. made before the contract it being admitted that B., before and after the contract made statements as to the same matters, and it being shown that the subsequent statements were asked and given as a repetition and confirmation of the preceding.

DEFENDANT'S petition for a new trial.

Irving Champlin, for plaintiff.

B. B. Hammond & Edward D. Bassett, for defendant.

CARPENTER J.

The defendant, as ground for his motion for a new trial, relies on two alleged misrulings made by the justice who tried the case, in the charge to the jury. The first of these is stated in the following words:

" If the defendant made the statements to Bosworth alleged by plaintiff before Bosworth was employed by plaintiff, but did not correct them after the defendant knew that Bosworth was agent of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff was entitled, so far as that part of the evidence was concerned, to recover."

The testimony shows, without dissent, that the witness Bosworth acting as the agent of Albro, commenced a negotiation with the defendant and another person for the purchase from them of their interest in a certain business and stock of goods; that in the course of those negotiations certain statements of fact, material to the proposed contract, were made by the defendant to Bosworth; that after the negotiations had continued for some time it was understood, between the defendant and his late partner on the one side and Bosworth on the other, that Bosworth then ceased to act for Albro, and would thereafter act in the matter on behalf of another person, who should become liable on the contract and whose name should be afterwards disclosed; that thereafter the defendant and Bosworth, not commencing the negotiation anew,...