Rand v. Michaud

• Decision Date: 11 December 1922
• Citation: 118 A. 893
• Parties: RAND et al. v. MICHAUD.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

118 A. 893

RAND et al.

v. MICHAUD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 11, 1922.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Aroostook County, at Law.

Action by Herbert L. Rand and another against Saul Michaud. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR. PHILBROOK, MORRILL, and WILSON, JJ.

Doherty & Tompkins, of Houlton, and Cook, Hutchinson & Pierce, of Portland, for plaintiffs.

A. S. Crawford, Jr., of Fort Kent, for defendant.

MORRILL, J. The only question for decision is whether the record presents an issue which should have been submitted to the determination of a jury. We think the question must be answered in the affirmative.

The plaintiffs declare upon a promissory note for $3,000. As special matter of defense the defendant says that a part of the consideration for the note, viz. $500, was in payment of a balance due from the defendant to the plaintiffs for personal property sold by the latter to him; as to the balance of the note he alleges that it—

"was in payment for certain sporting camps agreed to be sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant; that for the purpose of inducing the defendant to purchase said camps, and to execute and deliver said note to the plaintiffs, they did knowingly and falsely represent to the defendant that they were the owners of and had title to said camps, and had good right to sell and convey the same to him; that relying upon the truth of said representations, and in ignorance of the fact that they were untrue, the defendant was induced to purchase said camps from the plaintiffs and to execute and deliver to them the aforesaid note; that in truth and in fact the said camps were not the property of the plaintiffs, nor did they have good right to sell and convey the same to the defendant."

It is conceded that false representations of title to land may be actionable and may be the foundation of an action for deceit. (Burns v. Dockray, 156 Mass. 135, 30 N. E. 551; Atwood v. Chapman, 68 Me. 38, 28 Am. Rep. 5), even though the conveyance which the complaining party to the transaction has been induced to accept contains no warranty respecting the matter to which the false representation relates (Brown v. Blunt, 72 Me. 415, 418).

The defendant under the pleadings occupies the position of a plaintiff in an action for deceit.

The record discloses that in August, 1920, the plaintiffs were in occupation of, and managing, certain camps, resorted to by sportsmen, known as the "Titus camps," located on the east side of Eagle Lake in Aroostook county; the personal property they held under a bill of sale with full covenants of title, dated December 3, 1919, from one George W. Cooper, which contained the following clause, "also, all my interest in and to the Titus Camps." They occupied the real estate as assignees of a lease dated March 1, 1917, for a period of four years, given by David Pingree and others to Leonard A. Pierce and others, which, on December 19, 1919, had been duly assigned by the lessees with the written consent of the lessors, to the plaintiffs, who assumed all the covenants and stipulations of the original lessees. This lease demised the land and buildings and improvements thereon at the date of the lease, and contained a provision prohibiting the assignment of the lease, or the surrender of the premises to other parties without the written consent of the lessors, or the use of the premises for any other purpose than as "sportsmen's lodges."

The lease also provided that the lessees would—

"at the termination of this lease, peaceably deliver up to the said lessors, their heirs, and assigns, the said premises and the buildings and improvements thereon; and, in consideration of this lease, will leave on the said premises as the property of said lessors, and their heirs and assigns, without any cost or liability on the part of said lessors for betterments or improvements of any kind, any further buildings, erections, additions or improvements that may be placed upon the said premises by said lessee during the term of this lease: and it is hereby agreed that all said further buildings, erections, additions, and improvements, without the necessity of any further act by either of the said parties hereto, become the property of the said lessors and their heirs and assigns."

There is no evidence that any "further buildings, erections, additions, or improvements" were placed upon the leased premises after the date of the lease. It is therefore clear that the only title to the real estate, which the plaintiffs had at the time of the transactions in question, was as assignees of the unexpired term of the lease.

Later in August, 1920, one of the plaintiffs, Mr. H. L. Rand, began negotiations with the defendant, at first to put the property in the latter's hands for sale on a commission basis, finally resulting in a sale by the plaintiffs to defendant and the delivery of a bill of sale, with full covenants of title, dated October 2, 1920, describing the property sold as follows:

"The following goods and chattels, to wit: "All the personal property in and about and connected with the Titus Camps, so called, situated on the shore of Eagle Lake, Aroostook county, Maine; also all our interest in and to the Titus Camps; also one large motor boat on the lake as used by us and one canoe. Being the same camps sold to us by George W. Cooper by bill of sale dated December 3, 1919.

"Said Titus Camps are situated in section twenty-three of township sixteen, range six, W. E. L. S. Aroostook county, Maine, on land owned by David Pingree and others."

No assignment of the lease was given; but, by arrangement with the lessors, Michaud was permitted to take possession of the damps with the understanding, conditionally, that at the expiration of the lease March 1, 1921, he should have a renewal for another term of four years, at the same rental. This arrangement was subsequently carried into effect.

The alleged misrepresentations are contained in letters from H. E. Rand to the defendant. The negotiations began with a letter dated August 27, 1920, In which Mr. Rand said:

"Before I left Eagle Lake I intended to have a talk with you regarding my property there. I have come to the conclusion, after a careful study of the situation, that I cannot continue to ran that place, and that it is best for me to sell my interest in it for the best price I can get. * * * As far as I am concerned I should like to leave this place in your hands to sell on a commission basis."

To this letter defendant replied under date of August 31, 1920:

"Your letter of the 27th received, contents noted but not fully understood. What do yon want for the place, your interest and others, if there are any, as I understand you are with your brother? I probably would be interested myself if I could buy them cheap enough. * * * What do you pay for the lease and who to?"

Under date of September 13, Mr. Rand wrote:

"You may have the camps at the close of the season for $2,500 which does not include furnishings. We will sell you the furnishings at a a very fair price. I am sure there would be no disagreement between us on that phase of the trade. * * * I am sure you can make of those camps the best in the state of Maine. If I could go there and run them myself, I would not sell the outfit for less than $10,000; but since I cannot afford to leave my school and boys' camps, you are to greatly benefit yourself by buying the buildings for half the cost of erecting the central lodge or club camp today. A stone mason told me last summer that the fire place in...