Guilder v. Boonton-Pine Brook-N.Y. Bus Co.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1933
• Docket Number: No. 14.,14.
• Citation: 164 A. 316
• Parties: GUILDER et al. v. BOONTON-PINE BROOK-NEW YORK BUS CO. et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

164 A. 316

GUILDER et al.

v. BOONTON-PINE BROOK-NEW YORK BUS CO. et al.

No. 14.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Jan. 31, 1933.

Syllabus by the Court.

The rule is well established that for the purpose of proving fraud, verbal statements, which are material and fraudulent, although made before, or at the time of the written agreement, may be proved, as such evidence tends to disaffirm the contract, and to show that there was no contract in fact. The defendants in the case at bar did not seek to change or alter the agreements, hut sought to avoid them, by reason of the false representations which induced them.

When fraud is the issue, the fact that the agreement contained a provision that it comprised the entire contract between the parties and superseded any and all other agreements respecting the property, does not change or affect the rule allowing the introduction of evidence consisting of verbal statements made before or at the time of the written agreement; otherwise such an article would preserve a contract, no matter what false and fraudulent misrepresentations might have been made before or at the time of execution.

When fraud is involved, the rules of evidence are very liberal, and a wide latitude is given the party seeking to establish that fact.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Suit by Walter C. Guilder and others, partners trading as the Guilder Engineering Company, against the Boonton-Pine Brook-New York Bus Company and others, in which the defendants filed a counterclaim. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Herbert M. Ellend, of Newark (William L. Brunyate, of Newark, of counsel), for appellants.

Harrison & Roche, of Newark, for respondents.

HETFIELD, J.

The appellants, engaged in the business of manufacturing motor trucks and coaches, at Poughkeepsie, N. Y., instituted suit to recover the balance due on a series of promissory notes, made by the Boonton-Pine Brook-New York Bus Company, and indorsed by Louis Waxberg and Jacob Konner, the respondents herein, in accordance with the terms of two conditional sales agreements, providing for the purchase and delivery of two autobusses, which the defendant bus company proposed to use in the operation of a transportation system between Boonton, N. J., and New York City. The bus company agreed to pay the sum of $10,910.14 for each of said busses; and the appellants claimed there was an unpaid balance due, amounting to $4,555.66. There was an answer and counterclaim filed, which, in substance, alleged, among other things, that the busses were not as represented, and that the bus company was induced to make the purchase by reason of false and fraudulent representations of the plaintiffs, to the effect that the busses were mechanically perfect in all parts, and in general construction, and were capable of performing the work for which the bus company intended to use them, and were equal to busses built by the Pierce-Arrow Motor Company and the Yellow Coach Motor Company, and further, that the plaintiffs agreed to cancel all payments that were due, take the busses back to the factory, and replace the defective parts, and redeliver them, giving credit for the payments previously made; but contrary to the plan agreed upon, the plaintiffs, after obtaining possession, permitted the...