Kiss v. Kahm

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DICKENSON, Judge.
• Citation: Kiss v. Kahm, 132 Conn. 593, 46 A.2d 337 (Conn. 1946)
• Decision Date: 13 February 1946
• Parties: KISS et al. v. KAHM et al.

132 Conn. 593

46 A.2d 337

KISS et al.

v.KAHM et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Feb. 13, 1946.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; Swain, Judge.

Action by Anthony Kiss and others against Frederick H. Kahm and others to recover damages for alleged false representation in connection with the sale of land. The case was tried to a jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs and defendant LaVoie appeals.

No error. The appellant filed a motion for reargument which was denied.

David R. Lessler, of Bridgeport, for appellant.

Harry Freedman, of Bridgeport, for appellees.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.

DICKENSON, Judge.

The claim of the plaintiffs was that they were induced to buy the defendant LaVoie's property by false representations of his agent, the defendant Kahm, that there was an artesian well upon it. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs against both defendants. The defendant LaVoie, alone, has appealed, assigning error in the denial of a motion to set aside the verdict, in a single paragraph of the finding which stated that an admission had been made by counsel, and in the charge. There were no requests to charge, and no oral objection was made to the charge at its completion in compliance with Practice Book, § 156. We do not consider the numerous assignments of error directed to the charge.

The evidence has not been certified, but the parties have stipulated that their claims of proof as set forth in the finding shall be considered by us as a summary of it. See Conn.App.Proc., p. 156, § 115. We apply the same rule that we would have, had all of the evidence been before us-that the evidence and the facts are to be taken in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Bunnell v. Waterbury Hospital, 103 Conn. 520, 524, 131 A. 501; Conn.App.Proc., p. 152. An examination of the claims of the plaintiffs in the finding shows that they introduced evidence that LaVoie, hereinafter called the defendant, employed Kahm, a real estate broker, as his agent to sell his property; that Kahm showed the property to the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs called Kahm's attention to a concrete slab over a well and were informed by him that this was a sealed artesian well; that Kahm either knew this statement was false or made it recklessly without knowing whether it was true or false, for the purpose of inducing the plaintiffs to act upon it; and that the plaintiffs did act upon it and bought the property. Upon this evidence the jury reasonably could have found that Kahm, as the defendant's agent, made a false and fraudulent statement to the plaintiffs that induced them to buy the property; and that they failed to get what they had contracted for, to their damage. Board of Water Commissioners v. Robbins, 82 Conn. 623, 634, 636, 644, 74 A. 938.

The defendant contends before this court that if Kahm made the false representation as to the well it was made without express or implied authority and was not binding upon him. The trial court has found that it was an admitted fact that Kahm was the defendant's agent; that the defendant made no claim that Kahm was merely his broker; and that his counsel stated in argument that if Kahm was liable the defendant too would be liable. The defendant claims that the statement was immaterial and irrelevant and does not preclude him from now raising...