Gaucher v. Solomon

• Decision Date: 21 May 1932
• Citation: 181 N.E. 238,279 Mass. 296
• Parties: GAUCHER et al. v. SOLOMON et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

279 Mass. 296

181 N.E. 238

GAUCHER et al.

v.SOLOMON et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

May 21, 1932.

Report from Superior Court, Worcester County; Donahue, Judge.

Action by Alfred C. Gaucher and another against Hyman Solomon and another. Verdict for defendants. On report.

Judgment for defendants.

C. E. Tupper and F. B. Hall, both of Worcester, for plaintiffs.

J. F. McGrath and M. Cohan, both of Worcester, for defendants.

CROSBY, J.

This is an action of tort to recover damages for alleged false representations made by the defendants to the plaintiffs as to the fair market value of certain real estate situated on Canterbury street, in Worcester, and for alleged false representations as to the sum for which the first floor of the real esate was rented. By the terms of a written agreement entered into on February 9, 1925, between the male plaintiff and the male defendant the plaintiff agreed to sell to the defendant certain real estate on Lagrange street, in Worcester, and the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff the property on Canterbury street above referred to. One Cottrell, a real estate agent, was the broker for both parties in the exchange of properties. The case was tried before a judge of the superior court and a jury. At the close of the evidence the judge ordered a verdict for the defendant Ida Solomon, and submitted to the jury the case against the defendant Hyman Solomon, and a verdict in his favor was returned. The case is before this court upon a report of the judge which contains all the evidence material to the questions raised by the plaintiffs' exceptions.

Alfred C. Gaucher, who will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff, testified that Hyman Solomon, who will hereinafter be referred to as the defendant, told him that he, the defendant, had been in the real estate business long enough ‘to know what it was' and that the Canterbury street property was worth $18,000 and that he could get that amount for it, that he had dealt in real estate some time and knew what he was talking about; that at the registry of deeds on February 11, 1925, when the deeds were recorded the defendant told him that the rent of the first floor of the Canterbury street property was $60 a month; that a few days after the transfer the plaintiff and his wife were told by the tenant of the first floor that he was paying $45 a month; that before the agreement was entered into he and his wife talked with the tenant, but did not inquire of him about the rent of the first floor although they had an opportunity to do so; that neither of the defendants was present at this time; that after the plaintiffs learned from the tenant that the rent was $45 a month the plaintiff did not communicate with the defendant about it; that the statement of the defendant as to the rents of the property induced the plaintiff to buy it.

The plaintiff Caroline Gaucher testified that the defendant told her in her house that the property was well worth $16,000, and after the agreement was signed he told her that the market value of the property was $18,000; that she believed the defendant's statement made on the day the deeds were passed as to the rental of the first floor being $60 a month, and depended upon it; that the first time she heard about the rents was at the registry of deeds; that she and her husband talked with the tenant, but did not ask about the rents; that the first time anything was said about rents was after the deeds were recorded. During her examination by her counsel he proposed to ask her the following question: ‘Did you rely upon the statement made by the defendant, Hyman Solomon as to the market value of the property of $18,000 the...