Joseph J. Girard Et Ux. v. Peter Jerry

• Decision Date: 03 May 1921
• Citation: 113 A. 533,95 Vt. 129
• Parties: JOSEPH J. GIRARD ET UX. v. PETER JERRY
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

113 A. 533

95 Vt. 129

JOSEPH J. GIRARD ET UX. v. PETER JERRY

Supreme Court of Vermont

May 3, 1921

February Term, 1921.

ACTION OF TORT for fraud. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the September Term, 1920, Franklin County, Stanton, J presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case.

Judgment reversed, and judgment for the defendant to recover his costs.

Elmer Johnson for the defendant.

H P. Dee and M. H. Alexander for the plaintiffs.

Present WATSON, C. J., POWERS, TAYLOR, and MILES, JJ., and FISH, Supr. J.

OPINION

MILES

In January, 1920, the defendant and his wife, Rose Jerry, conveyed certain premises in St. Albans Town to the plaintiffs by warranty deed, reserving therein as follows "The said Peter and Rose Jerry reserve for their use and occupation northwest room exclusively, so long as they or either of them live or may desire to occupy the same, without any payment of rent or other consideration whatever, to be paid or rendered to the said grantee." In February following Rose Jerry died, and in May following the plaintiffs conveyed the same premises to Fred Tourangeau and wife by warranty deed, without any reservation of the defendant's interest reserved in his and his wife's deed to the plaintiffs. The Tourangeaus, shortly after the execution of the plaintiffs' deed to them, learned that the defendant claimed the right to occupy the room reserved in his deed to the plaintiffs. The matter was put into the hands of an attorney by the Tourangeaus, and the plaintiffs were threatened with suit. To fix the matter up the deed from the plaintiffs to the Tourangeaus was cancelled, and the plaintiffs paid them $ 500.

This suit is brought against the defendant charging him in tort with having made certain statements to the plaintiffs whereby they were induced to give the Tourangeaus the warranty deed that was given without reserving the room reserved by the defendant in his deed to them. The statements of the defendant upon which the plaintiffs rely as the ground of their action in tort, and which the evidence tended to show were as follows: "That he would make no claim to said premises; that he would claim no right therein; that he would confirm the sale of said premises to said Tourangeaus; that the plaintiffs were absolute owners, and had lawful right to dispose of said premises, and could give good and valid title and possession to said premises to said Tourangeaus without any reservation or restrictions, and free and clear from incumbrance." It is not claimed by the plaintiffs tha...