Huntress v. Blodgett

• Decision Date: 27 June 1910
• Citation: 206 Mass. 318,92 N.E. 427
• Parties: HUNTRESS v. BLODGETT et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

206 Mass. 318

92 N.E. 427

HUNTRESS v. BLODGETT et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 27, 1910

COUNSEL

Frank M. Forbush and Jesse W. Morton, for plaintiff.

W. Orison Underwood and John S. Richardson, for defendant Blodgett.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

The exceptions in this case are to the refusal of the judge to give to the jury certain instructions requested by the defendant.

The first request was for an instruction: 'That the plaintiff, upon all the evidence, is not entitled to recover.' This was rightly refused. There was much evidence that the defendant, with an intent to deceive the plaintiff, made false representations for the purpose of inducing him to pay money for the benefit of the defendant and others, and that the plaintiff, relying upon these representations, made the payments set forth in his declaration.

The fifth request was that 'the defendant cannot be held for any damages to the plaintiff by reason of any dealings of the said plaintiff, or of the National Maple Sugar Company, which were not with or on account of the H. J. Blodgett Company.' But the claim was for damages growing out of dealings with the defendant William K Blodgett, as an individual, which were witnessed in part by a contract in writing signed by the plaintiff as the party of the first part and by this defendant as the party of the second part, the making of which contract was induced by the false representations of this defendant.

The sixth, seventh, and eleventh requests were to the effect that the defendant would not be liable for oral false representations which related to the assets and property of the H. J. Blodgett Company. These requests were founded upon the statute of frauds (Rev. Laws, c. 74, § 4), which provides that 'no action shall be brought to charge a person upon or by reason of a misrepresentation or assurance made concerning the character, conduct, credit, ability, trade or dealings of any other person, unless such representation or assurance is made in writing,' etc. This provision, which has been re-enacted from time to time, is founded upon St 1834, c. 182, § 5, which contains the words, 'to the intent or purpose that such person may obtain credit, money or goods thereupon.' It is established in a series of decisions that its meaning is the same as if these words had been retained in the revisions of the statutes. Medbury v. Watson, 6 Metc. 246, 39 Am. Dec. 726; Norton v Huxley, 13 Gray, 285; Mann v. Blanchard, 2 Allen, 386. In the present case the representations were not made...