Lynch v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 20 May 1898 |
| Citation | 50 N.E. 623,171 Mass. 307 |
| Parties | LYNCH v. MURPHY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
J.H. Morrison, for plaintiff.
J.J Hogan and J.W. McEvoy, for defendant.
This is an action for deceit. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant fraudulently made certain false representations in connection with the sale to him of stock in a corporation. The corporation was called the Haggerty Water-Motor Company and was organized, under the laws of the state of Maine, for the purpose of manufacturing and selling water motors under patents. The plaintiff testified on cross-examination that before he bought any stock in the company he had seen the machine in operation at the defendant's house, and that he went to look at it there. He also testified that when he purchased his stock he knew that the machine was not perfected, and that they were experimenting on it. All his testimony shows that he knew enough about the corporation to understand that the value of its stock must be largely a matter of opinion, and dependent upon future contingencies. All the alleged false representations on which he relies were in regard to the value of the stock as an investment, and related in the main, if not altogether, to the future. Considered in connection with the nature of the property they were plainly mere expressions of opinion, which, when made by a vendor, will not sustain an action for deceit. Belcher v. Costello, 122 Mass. 189; Nash v Trust Co., 159 Mass. 439, 34 N.E. 625; Id., 163 Mass. 574, 40 N.E. 1039; Demming v. Darling, 148 Mass. 504, 20 N.E. 107; Andrews v. Jackson, 168 Mass. 266, 47 N.E. 412. The plaintiff bought stock at different times. The first time he bought of the defendant and of Haggerty, who was the patentee of the machine. He testified that the stock book and certificates showed that the stock so purchased was treasury stock of the company. Afterwards he bought of one Wholey, a stockholder, and later of one Brennan, and still later he bought more of the defendant and Haggerty, which also was treasury stock, transferred to him by one Williams as trustee for the company. The report leaves it uncertain whether the stock bought of Wholey and of Brennan was or was not treasury stock. The plaintiff testified that in making each of these purchases he was influenced by the defendant's representations of value, which, as we have already said, purported to be,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Coshnear
... ... and is not a crime. Deming v. Darling, 148 Mass ... 504, 20 N.E. 107,2 L.R.A. 743; Lynch v. Murphy, 171 ... Mass. 307, 50 N.E. 623; [194 N.E. 903] Commonwealth v. Quinn, ... 222 Mass. 504, 512, 513, 111 N.E. 405; Gaugher v ... ...
-
Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Back Bay Hotels Garage, Inc.
...the plaintiff ought not to rely upon the representation. Deming v. Darling, 148 Mass. 504, 20 N. E. 107,2 L. R. A. 743;Lynch v. Murphy, 171 Mass. 307, 50 N. E. 623;Gaugher v. Solomon, 279 Mass. 296, 299, 181 N. E. 238. Nevertheless, the element of opinion so pervades value that some allowan......
-
Harris v. Delco Prods., Inc.
...susceptible of actual knowledge have been held to be non-actionable at least when made by one not in a fiduciary capacity, Lynch v. Murphy, 171 Mass. 307, 50 N.E. 623, and it is a general rule that the law refuses to permit recovery in tort for damages resulting from reliance upon false sta......
-
Campbell v. Zion's Co-op. Home Building & Real Estate Co.
... ... Milwaukee Brick & Cement Co. v. Schoknecht ... 108 Wis. 457, 84 N.W. 838; Mumford v ... Tolman , 157 Ill. 258, 41 N.E. 617; Lynch v ... Murphy , 171 Mass. 307, 50 N.E. 623; Myers ... v. Alpena L. & B. Ass'n , 117 Mich. 389, 75 N.W ... 944; Warner v. Benjamin , 89 ... ...