Kronfeld v. Missal

• Decision Date: 20 December 1913
• Citation: 87 Conn. 491,89 A. 95
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: KRONFELD v. MISSAL.

89 A. 95

87 Conn. 491

KRONFELD

v. MISSAL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 20, 1913.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; William S. Case, Judge.

Action by Leopold Kronfeld against Isaac S. Missal, for fraud in the sale of defendant's real estate and a stock of dry goods. From the court's ruling refusing to set aside a verdict for plaintiff on motion, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. Gilbert Calhoun, of Hartford, for appellant.

Morris Older and John F. Forward, both of Hartford, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. It appears from the undisputed facts that on December 9, 1911, the defendant, Missal, was the owner of a stock of dry goods, and the business connected therewith, in the city of Hartford. Missal also owned the building in which the goods were located and the business conducted therein. At this time he made a written agreement with the plaintiff, which provided for a sale of the goods in the store, with the fixtures and good will. This written agreement, which was never recorded, also contained a provision for a lease of the store building to the plaintiff, on certain terms, for the period of five years. Kronfeld took possession of the store and the goods at once and paid the rent called for in the written agreement until about the middle of March, 1912. On December 30, 1911, the plaintiff and defendant met, and the defendant executed a bill of sale of the goods and fixtures in conformity with the terms of the written agreement. The bill of sale was recorded upon the same day it was made, but the defendant never made a lease of the premises to Kronfeld. On March 16, 1912, Missal sold the store building to one Berman. No mention was made of the plaintiff's lease in the deed conveying the real estate to Berman. Berman refused to recognize the plaintiff's rights to a lease, but allowed Kronfeld to occupy the store from month to month at a rental in advance of the one called for in the written agreement of December 9, 1911.

The complaint contained a charge of fraud against the defendant for falsely representing by his acts and statements that the bill of sale contained a lease of the premises to the plaintiff in conformity with the terms of the written agreement. It was also alleged that on March 16, 1912, the defendant sold the store to Berman without informing the purchaser of any lease to the plaintiff, and without mentioning any lease or obligation to the plaintiff in the deed conveying the real estate; that the defendant made these representations falsely, and did these acts with a fraudulent intention thereby to cheat and defraud the plaintiff; that the plaintiff is unable to obtain any lease from Berman, the purchaser, and that thereby his business, which is an established one, will be ruined and destroyed. The complaint, although not accurately drawn, sufficiently states that the false and fraudulent representations and conduct were made by the defendant with the intention of defrauding the plaintiff, and that this fraudulent intention prevailed. The defendant evidently so regarded it, as he did not venture to question its sufficiency or certainty by a demurrer, or otherwise.

The alleged concealment of the plaintiffs right to a lease of the premises when they were sold and conveyed to Berman was one of the important facts connected with the defendant's wrongful statements and omissions. If Berman were a purchaser by a...