Moran v. Tucker

• Citation: 101 A. 327,40 R.I 485
• Decision Date: 05 July 1917
• Docket Number: No. 4996.,4996.
• Parties: MORAN v. TUCKER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

101 A. 327

40 R.I 485

MORAN

v. TUCKER.

No. 4996.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 5, 1917.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; John W. Sweeney, Judge.

Action by Edward R. Moran against Francis E. Tucker. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled, and case remitted, with directions to enter judgment upon the verdict.

O'Shaunessy, Gainer & Carr, of Providence, for plaintiff. Green, Hinckley & Allen, of Providence (Chauncey E. Wheeler and Harold P. Salisbury, both of Providence, of counsel), for defendant.

SWEETLAND, J. This is an action of trespass on the case in deceit brought to recover damages for alleged fraudulent misrepresentations made by the defendant to the plaintiff in a transaction between them relating to the sale of certain land.

The case was tried before a justice of the superior court sitting with a jury, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. Said justice denied the defendant's motion for a new trial. The case is before us upon the defendant's exception to the decision of the justice on said motion and upon the defendant's exceptions to certain rulings of the justice made in the course of the trial.

From the evidence the jury were warranted in finding the following: Through the efforts of the defendant eight persons purchased from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company certain land in the province of Alberta, in the Canadian Northwest. The defendant was the purchaser of one section of said land known as section No. 27. Section No. 27 stood on the records in the name of the defendant's wife. These lands were held in severalty; but the owners had entered into an agreement to cultivate said land jointly. This joint enterprise they termed the syndicate. The defendant was made the manager and treasurer of said syndicate. In the spring of 1913 he went upon the land and made some arrangements for the purchase of machinery and supplies to cultivate said syndicate land. The defendant also claimed that he had procured from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company an option for the purchase of an additional 1 1/2 sections of land adjoining the land of the syndicate. In April, 1913, the defendant came to Providence and met the plaintiff. The defendant then represented to the plaintiff that the affairs of the syndicate were in a sound, prosperous, and profitable condition; that he intended to plant a number of sections of the syndicate land largely with flax; that everything was in readiness for the immediate planting of several sections of said land; that he himself intended to increase his holdings in the syndicate until he owned 5 sections; that for $1,000 in cash and a four months' note for $400 he would purchase for the plaintiff one-half section of the section and one-half of land upon which he held said option and make arrangements that the plaintiff might put the land thus purchased into the syndicate and share in the profits of that enterprise. These representations were false. The affairs of the syndicate wore not prosperous; the defendant knew that he was not able and he did not intend to plant a number of sections of the syndicate land; he had learned that it was too late in the season to plant flax and that said land was not suited to the cultivation of flax; he did not intend to increase his holdings in said syndicate, but was at that time endeavoring to dispose of the section which he did own; he did not intend to use said $1,400 to purchase one-half section of land for the plaintiff from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, but did intend to turn over to the defendant one-half of section No. 27, a portion of the land which he held in the syndicate. From the evidence the jury were warranted in finding that the defendant obtained the $1,000 cash and the four months' note for $400 from the plaintiff through false representations.

Upon learning that the defendant had deceived him the plaintiff gave the defendant notice that he rescinded the contract; and he demanded that the defendant return to him said $1,000 in cash and the four months' note for $400. The defendant claims that because the plaintiff did not go on and complete the payment of $1,400, but did disaffirm the contract and demanded a return of the money fraudulently obtained from him, the plaintiff has lost his right to sue in deceit.

The jury found, specially that when he made the contract with the plaintiff it was the Intention of the defendant to sell to the plaintiff one-half of section No. 27 which he held in said syndicate, and that he did not intend to purchase for the plaintiff a one-half section of the 1 1/2 sections of land on which the defendant claimed that he had an option. This finding was fully supported by the defendant's letter of June 1, 1913, to the plaintiff, and by other evidence in the case. It thus appears that the defendant not only by fraudulent misrepresentations induced the plaintiff to enter into a contract with him for the sale of land, but also that in further fraud of the plaintiff the defendant did not intend to procure for the plaintiff the land which the defendant had promised to purchase.

Generally an action in deceit for damages caused by...