Packard v. Pratt

Decision Date28 July 1874
Citation115 Mass. 405
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
PartiesEli Packard v. Thomas H. Pratt & another

[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Suffolk. Tort for deceit against Thomas H. Pratt and W. A. Weaver. The declaration alleged in substance that on or about December 27, 1872, at Boston, the defendant Pratt being engaged in business styled by himself the "Commercial and Business Exchange," and having offered to sell out one half of the stock, fixtures and good will of his said business to the plaintiff, the defendants did with intent to deceive and defraud the plaintiff, falsely and fraudulently represent to him that the said business as theretofore conducted by the defendant Pratt was a splendid chance for any one that wanted a first class and permanent business, that it would bear the closest investigation, that it was a profitable business, and that the net profits thereof realized by the defendant Pratt for the year last past had been three thousand dollars; that the plaintiff relying on said representations purchased of the defendant Pratt one half the stock, fixtures and good will of said business, and paid him therefor the sum of one hundred and sixty dollars. The declaration then alleged the falsity of the representations, that the defendants knew that they were false, a tender to the defendant Pratt of the stock and fixtures, and that the plaintiff disclaimed any interest in them.

Trial in the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J., who, after verdict for the defendants, reported the case to this court as follows:

The pleadings are referred to as part of this report; also, the written lease, hereinafter mentioned. The plaintiff testified, the defendants' counsel objecting, that, in consequence of directions before received by him, he went to room No. 1, in the building No. 593 Washington Street Boston, said room being up one flight of stairs, and there found both defendants; and that then and there the defendant Pratt, in presence of the defendant Weaver, told the plaintiff that their business was profitable, and that he Pratt, had received three thousand dollars as net profits from the business the last year; that they had done business to the amount of eight or ten thousand dollars together; that he, Pratt, had made three thousand dollars last year from the business; that he would sell out his part to the plaintiff and do well by him; that the plaintiff replied that he did not know that he could buy such a business; that he had not money to buy such a business. Pratt said he would sell out cheap, and give the plaintiff a chance to make money, as he, Pratt, was going away to New York, and wanted to sell out; that the plaintiff replied that it would be of no use, as the plaintiff had not money enough to buy him out; that the defendant Weaver then said, that perhaps if the plaintiff had only money enough to pay in part, Pratt would wait for the other part; that he, Weaver, liked the looks of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff would be the very man he, Weaver, wanted. Pratt said that if the plaintiff would pay him what money the plaintiff had, he, Pratt, would sell him his part; that the plaintiff told Pratt, that he, the plaintiff, didn't know about the business, didn't know as it would suit him, didn't know as he could learn it; that Pratt replied that the business was not much to learn, and that Weaver could show it to the plaintiff readily; that the plaintiff told Pratt he would take the business at their price, which was seven hundred and fifty dollars; that Pratt asked the plaintiff how much money he had, and the plaintiff told him he had one hundred and sixty dollars; and Weaver said he thought that would do for the first payment, and for the remainder, the plaintiff could give the money to him as it came in, and he, Weaver, could send it to Pratt; that one of them said there was no need of going out to make a paper; that they could make one out as well; that Weaver sat down and wrote the paper; [*] that Pratt and the plaintiff signed it, and that either that day or the next day the plaintiff paid one hundred and sixty dollars to Pratt in Weaver's presence, in the same room, No. 1; that the paper was made out in duplicate; that Pratt took one, and the plaintiff the other; that after that, the plaintiff went to the said room every day, for about a week, and spent his time there; that Pratt used to come in there about once a day, and Weaver was there, generally, from ten to five o'clock; that no business came; men came with cards, and one man inquired for Pratt & Weaver; that the plaintiff stayed there six or seven days, in this way; that the last day or next to the last day, a young man came in, with one of those business cards of Pratt & Weaver; that Weaver went out with that young man and met Pratt outside the door, there being a thin board partition; that he told them he was sent there for a chance as collector, and he should like the situation; that they asked if he had references; that he said he had; that they asked if he had two or three hundred dollars to deposit; that he said he didn't know it was required; that Pratt told him it was the money he was after, not a reference. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Mackenzie Oil Company v. Omar Oil & Gas Company
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • October 8, 1929
    ... ... thereto. Hines v. Brode, 168 Cal. 507, 143 ... P. 729; People's State Bank v. Hall, 83 ... Ind. App. 385, 148 N.E. 486; Packard v ... Pratt, 115 Mass. 405; Fraser v. McLean, 46 ... U.C.Q.B. 302; 27 C. J. 17, 38 ... There ... are many cases of the ... ...
  • Sandler v. Elliott
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1957
    ...fact that the plaintiff's franchise rights came from the corporation rather than the defendant. The cause of action is the same. Packard v. Pratt, 115 Mass. 405. The rule of damages is the same. Nash v. Minnesota Title Ins. & Trust Co., 163 Mass. 574, 582, 40 N.E. 1039, 28 L.R.A. 753; Kerr ......
  • Zager v. Setzer
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1955
    ...v. Miller, Mo., 48 S.W.2d 867; Turk v. Botsford, 70 Or. 198, 139 P. 925. See also Watson v. Jones, 41 Fla. 241, 25 So. 678; Packard v. Pratt, 115 Mass. 405; Cook v. Gill, 83 Md. 177, 34 A. 248. And these decisions of this Court support the principle here applied: Dennis v. City of Albemarle......
  • Tucker v. Badoian
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • December 28, 1977
    ...of false and fraudulent representations . . . and not the particular form of the contract entered into by the parties." Packard v. Pratt, 115 Mass. 405, 409 (1874). 4. The judge did not err in allowing the plaintiffs' expert to testify as to the fair market value of the premises in question......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT