Mabardy v. Mchugh
| Citation | 88 N.E. 894,202 Mass. 148 |
| Parties | MABARDY et al. v. McHUGH et al. |
| Decision Date | 22 May 1909 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Jas.
T. Connolly and John L. Sheehan, for plaintiffs.
Vahey & Vahey (Philip Mansfield, of counsel), for defendants.
This is an action of tort sounding in deceit. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiffs went upon a certain irregular shaped tract of land (for false representations inducing the purchase of which this action was brought) with one of the defendants, who pointed out the true boundaries and fraudulently stated that the tract contained 65 acres when in fact it contained 40 3/4 acres. Upon this aspect of the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury that 'if the plaintiffs * * * were taken over the farm by the defendants, * * * or [and] were shown the bounds so that the plaintiffs knew where the farm was and what was comprised within the bounds, it would not be of any consequence that representations may have been made by the defendant in relation to the acreage.' The evidence being conflicting as to whether the boundaries were shown, the jury were further instructed that if the defendant, who talked with the plaintiffs, 'knew that there were not 65, or nearly 65 acres, or if he didn't know anything about it and stated it as a fact within his personal knowledge then it would be a false representation for which he would be liable, provided' the other elements essential to a recovery were found to exist.
The correctness of the first of these instructions is challenged. It is in exact accordance with the law as laid down in Gordon v. Parmelee, 2 Allen, 212, and Mooney v. Miller, 102 Mass. 217. The facts in the case at bar are similar in all material respects to these cases. An attempt is made to distinguish them on the ground that the present plaintiffs were Syrians, ignorant of our language, and that hence a trust relation existed between them and the defendant. But, whatever else may be said of this contention, it fails because they were accompanied by two of their own countrymen, who were thoroughly familiar with our language and acted as interpreters for them. In effect, the contention of the plaintiffs amounts to a request to overrule these two cases. They have been cited with approval in Roberts v. French, 153 Mass. 60, 26 N.E. 416, 10 L. R. A. 656, 25 Am. St. Rep. 611, and as supporting authorities, without criticism, in other opinions. The court, however, has refused to apply the rule of those judgments to other facts closely analogous. See Lewis v. Jewell, 151 Mass. 345, 24 N.E. 52, 21 Am. St. Rep. 454; Holst v. Stewart, 161 Mass. 516, 37 N.E. 755, 42 Am. St. Rep. 442; Whiting v. Price, 172 Mass. 240, 51 N.E. 1084, 70 Am. St. Rep. 262; Kilgore v. Bruce, 166 Mass. 136, 44 N.E. 108. This court in recent years, by pointed language and by conclusions reached, has indicated a plain disposition not to extend legal immunity for the falsehood of vendors in the course of negotiations for sales beyond the bounds already established. Dawe v. Morris, 149 Mass. 188-192, 21 N.E. 313, 4 L. R. A. 158, 14 Am. St. Rep. 404; Way v. Ryther, 165 Mass. 226, 42 N.E. 1128; Kilgore v. Bruce, 166 Mass. 136, 44 N.E. 108; Andrews v. Jackson, 168 Mass. 266-268, 47 N.E. 412, 37 L. R. A. 402, 60 Am. St. Rep. 390; Whiting v. Price, 172 Mass. 240, 51 N.E. 1084, 70 Am. St. Rep. 262; Boles v. Merrill, 173 Mass. 491, 53 N.E. 894, 73 Am. St. Rep. 308; Arnold v. Teel, 182 Mass. 1-4, 64 N.E. 413; Adams v. Collins, 196 Mass. 422, 82 N.E. 498; Long v. Athol, 196 Mass. 497-504, 82 N.E. 665, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 96; Gurney v. Tenney, 197 Mass. 457, 84 N.E. 428; Lyons Burial Vault Co. v. Taylor, 198 Mass. 63, 84 N.E. 320; Rollins v. Quimby, 200 Mass. 162, 86 N.E. 350.
This judicial attitude perhaps reflects an increasingly pervasive moral sense in some of the common transactions of trade. While the science of jurisprudence is not, and under present conditions cannot be, coextensive with the domain of morality, nor generally undertake to differentiate between motives which mark acts as good or bad, yet it is true, as was said by Mr. Justice Brett, in Robinson v. Mollett, L. R. 7 H. L. C. 802, 817, that 'the courts have applied to the mercantile business brought before them what have been called legal principles, which have almost always been the fundamental ethical rules of right and wrong.' This is only a concrete expression of the broader generalization that law is the manifestation of the conscience of the commonwealth.
In many other jurisdictions the rule of Gordon v. Parmelee and Mooney v. Miller has not been followed, and false representations as to area of land, even though true boundaries were pointed out, have been held actionable. McGhee v. Bell, 170 Mo. 121, 135, 150, 70 S.W. 493, 59 L. R. A. 761; May v. Loomis, 140 N.C. 350, 52 S.E. 728; Boddy v. Henry, 113 Iowa, 462-465, 85 N.W. 771, 53 L. R. A. 769; Boddy v. Conover, 126 Iowa, 31, 101 N.W. 447; Antle v. Sexton, 137 Ill. 410, 27 N.E. 691; Estes v. Odom, 91 Ga. 600-609, 18 S.E. 355; Lovejoy v. Isbell, 73 Conn. 368-375, 47 A. 682; Cawston v. Sturgis, 29 Or. 331, 43 P. 656; Starkweather v. Benjamin, 32 Mich. 305; Paine v. Upton, 87 N.Y. 327, 41 Am. Rep. 371; Mitchell v. Zimmerman, 4 Tex. 75, 51 Am. Dec. 717; Walling v. Kinnard, 10 Tex. 508, 60 Am. Dec. 216; Speed v. Hollingsworth, 54 Kan. 436, 38 P. 496. See, also, Fairchild v. McMahon, 139 N.Y. 290, 34 N.E. 779, 36 Am. St. Rep. 701; Schumacher v. Mather, 133 N.Y. 590, 30 N.E. 755.
Other cases, apparently opposed to the Massachusetts rule, on examination prove to go no further than to decide that misrepresentations as to area, when there is no evidence that boundaries were shown, constitute deceit. Griswold v. Gebbie, 126 Pa. 353, 17 A. 673, 12 Am. St. Rep. 878; Cabot v. Christie, 42 Vt. 121, 1 Am. Rep. 313; Coon v. Atwell, 46 N.H. 510; Ledbetter v. Davis, 121 Ind. 119, 22 N.E. 744; Perkins Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 98 Ga. 388, 25 S.E. 556; Sears v. Stinson, 3 Wash. St. 615, 29 P. 205; Hill v. Brower, 76 N.C. 124; Stearns v. Kennedy, 94 Minn. 439, 103 N.W. 212. This is the substance of the latter part of the instruction given in the superior court, and is the law of this commonwealth.
The rule of Mooney v. Miller seemingly has been approved or followed in Lynch v. Mercantile Trust Co. (C. C.) 18 F. 486, Crown v. Carriger, 66 Ala. 590, and Mires v. Summerville, 85 Mo.App. 183, although the last case has been overruled in Judd v. Walker, 114 Mo.App. 128-135, 89 S.W. 558. If the point was now presented for the first time, it is possible that we might be convinced by the argument of the plaintiffs and the great weight of persuasive authority in its support, especially in view of Lewis v. Jewell, 151 Mass. 345, 24 N.E. 52, 21 Am St. Rep. 454. But there is something to be said in support of the two earlier decisions now questioned. A purchase and a sale of real estate is a transaction of importance and cannot be treated as entered into lightly. People must use their own faculties for their protection and information, and cannot assume that the law will relieve them from the natural effects of their heedlessness or take better care of their interests than they themselves do. Thrift, foresight and selfreliance would be undermined if it was the policy of the law to attempt to afford relief for mere want of sagacity. It is an ancient and widely, if not universally, accepted principle of the law of deceit, that, where representations are made respecting a subject as to which the complaining party has at hand reasonably available means for ascertaining the truth and the matter is open to inspection, if, without being fraudulently diverted therefrom, he does not take advantage of this opportunity, he cannot be heard to impeach the transaction on the ground of the falsehoods of the other party. Salem India Rubber Co. v. Adams, 23 Pick. 256-265; Slaughter's Adm'r v. Gerson, 13 Wall. 383, 20 L.Ed. 627; Long v. Warren, 68 N.Y. 426-432; Bailey v. Merrill, 3 Bulstrode, 94. This rule in its general statement applies to such a case as that before us. It is easy for one disappointed in the fruits of a trade to imagine, and perhaps persuade himself, that the cause of his loss is the deceit of the other par...
To continue reading
Request your trial