Schenley Distillers Corporation v. Renken
Citation | 34 F. Supp. 678 |
Parties | SCHENLEY DISTILLERS CORPORATION v. RENKEN. |
Decision Date | 26 August 1940 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Stoney, Crosland & Pritchard, of Charleston, S. C., and C. T. Graydon, of Columbia, S. C., for plaintiff.
John I. Cosgrove and J. D. E. Meyer, both of Charleston, S. C., for defendant.
The complaint herein states a cause of action for debt. The answer contains a general denial, claims of offset and a counterclaim for damages. The reply of plaintiff, as a second defense, sets forth "that there was no memorandum in writing signed by the party to be charged, to wit, the plaintiff in this action, of any such contract as alleged in the counterclaim herein and that there being no such memorandum, the same is in violation of what is commonly known as the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries and that this plaintiff does plead said Statute in connection with this matter."
The matter is before me on the motion of defendant to dismiss and to strike this defense in the reply upon the following grounds: (a) Because said defense fails to state a legal defense to the claim of the defendant set forth in his counterclaim, (b) because said defense is immaterial, irrelevant and legally insufficient, (c) in that defendant's counterclaim is based on tort for fraud and deceit and not on contract, so that the Statute of Frauds, controlling solely the execution and performance of contracts, has no application thereto nor can it constitute a legal defense.
To determine the question presented by the motion requires a construction of the pleadings. If the claim of defendant is founded upon a contract or agreement within the inhibition of the Statute of Frauds the defense based upon the Statute is applicable and relevant, otherwise it is not. As I construe the language of the counterclaim, the gist of the cause of action therein stated is one in tort for fraud and deceit, resting, particularly, upon the principle that an action for damages will lie against one who makes a promise or representation having no intention of performance at the time it is made and which is relied upon by another to his injury. The claim is not based upon the breach of a contract or agreement, but on alleged false promises and representations. Defendant expressly has denominated the counterclaim as an action for tort. In paragraph Sixth thereof, he states: "That this is an action in tort for injury and damage resulting to this defendant by reason of the plaintiff, its agents and servants, having fraudulently, recklessly and/or intentionally made a statement or statements amounting to fraud, on which this defendant relied to his injury and damage."
The gravamen of his complaint is more elaborately set forth in subsequent paragraphs of the counterclaim. In substance, they allege that plaintiff for sometime had been the exclusive distributor for plaintiff's products in certain counties of South Carolina; that during that association and representation defendant was offered a distributorship by a competitor of plaintiff; that plaintiff insisted defendant should refrain from accepting the new account (which it seems would have to have been exclusive) and assured defendant plaintiff would never take its representation from him should he do so; that defendant declined the proffer of the competitor and that shortly thereafter plaintiff cancelled defendant's distributorship. In consequence of this action on the plaintiff's part, defendant claims he was unexpectedly left without representation of a major line of distilled liquors, was put to expense, and was damaged.
It is charged that the statements and representations of plaintiff in the transaction were false, reckless and fraudulent, were made without any intention of performance, but for the purpose and intent of preventing defendant from accepting the proffered distributorship in order to eliminate him as a competitor, and with the deliberate intention of deceiving him. The claim of defendant being plainly in tort, is the Statute of Fraud and Perjuries relevant and can it constitute a defense thereto?
In the discussion of this question I deal only with the applicability of the Statute. The legal sufficiency of the counterclaim is not before me. The rule, recognized by a majority of the States, including South Carolina, is that an action for fraud and deceit "may be predicated on promise made with the present intention not to perform, or as the rule is frequently expressed, upon promises made without intention of performance, and that for such fraudulent promise, relief may be had in equity or law as the circumstances and issues presented demand." 23 Am.Jur. 885.
In South Carolina this principle has been recognized and applied in recent years to a variety of situations, though an early decision (1856) apparently refused its recognition. Davis v. Moore, 9 Rich., S.C., 215. The later cases in South Carolina, however, appear to have superseded it. See, Palmetto Bank & Trust Company v. Grimsley, 1926, 134 S.C. 493, 133 S.E. 437, 51 A.L.R. 42; Bradley v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 1931, 162 S.C. 303, 160 S.E. 721; Branham v. Wilson Motor Co., 1938, 188 S. C. 1, 198 S.E. 417; Cook v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 1938, 186 S.C. 77, 194 S.E. 636; Page v. Pilot Life Ins. Co., 1939, 192 S.C. 59, 5 S.E.2d 454, 125 A.L.R. 872.
In the case of Cook v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., supra 186 S.C. 77, 194 S.E. 639, the Court said: "Where one promises to do a certain thing, having at the time no intention of keeping his agreement, it is a fraudulent misrepresentation of a fact, and actionable as such."
In those states which recognize the principle that an action in tort for fraud and deceit may be based upon a false representation or promise made with no intention of performance at the time of its making, it is held that the Statute of Frauds has no application and cannot constitute a defense thereto. The rule is thus stated: "Assuming that fraud may be predicated on an oral promise made with the intention at the time not to perform, the fact that the oral promise is unenforceable under the statute of frauds does not preclude the showing of the promise in an action for deceit." 23 Am.Jur. 890.
The theory underlying these decisions is that, while the oral agreement may be unenforceable under the statute, the purpose of allowing testimony in its support is not to establish the agreement but to prove the fraud.
The Page case, supra 192 S.C. 59, 5 S. E.2d 456, after reference to the Grimsley case, cited above, illustrates the principle thus: (Italics added)
In Parham-Thomas-McSwain v. Atlantic Life Ins. Co., 111 S.C. 37, 96 S.E. 697, 698, on a like issue, the Supreme Court of South Carolina said:
In the Grimsley case, supra 134 S.C. 493, 133 S.E. 438, the Statute was invoked as a bar to plaintiff's action in tort for fraud and deceit resting in an oral promise or representation made with no intention of its performance at the time it was made, and in that case the Court said:
In Columbia National Bank of Columbia v. People's Bank et al., 162 S.C. 324, 160 S.E. 728, 729, it was stated:
Burgdorfer v. Thielemann, 153 Or. 354, 55 P.2d 1122, 1125, 104 A.L.R. 1407, perhaps most clearly, thus states the rule: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hunt v. Mobil Oil Corporation
...N.Y. 602, 611-12, 122 N.E. 635 (1919); Adams v. Gillig, 199 N.Y. 314, 319-22, 92 N.E. 670 (1910). See also Schenley Distillers Corp. v. Renken, 34 F.Supp. 678, 680-82 (E.D.S.C.1940); Terris v. Cumminskey, 11 A.D.2d 259, 261, 203 N. Y.S.2d 445 (3d Dep't 1960); Sabo v. Delman, 3 N.Y.2d 155, 1......
-
Terminal Railroad Ass'n of St. Louis v. Schmidt
...to the issues. 49 C.J., sec. 81, p. 83; Stokes v. Farnsworth, 99 F. 836; Chew v. Eagan, 87 N.J.Eq. 80, 99 A. 611; Schenley Distillers Corp. v. Renken, 34 F.Supp. 678. Blair & Kooreman, Edgar & Matthes and Harry S. Rooks for respondent, John J. Schmidt, Executor. (1) Appellant's point (1) re......
-
Schaefer v. Mayor and Council of City of Athens
...in a pleading is irrelevant, immaterial or impertinent is whether evidence in support of it would be admissible. Schenley Distillers Corp. v. Renken, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 678. It is well settled in this State that evidence relative to the existence of liability insurance or of negotiations whic......
-
Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis v. Schmidt
...to the issues. 49 C.J., sec. 81, p. 83; Stokes v. Farnsworth, 99 F. 836; Chew v. Eagan, 87 N.J. Eq. 80, 99 Atl. 611; Schenley Distillers Corp. v. Renken, 34 F. Supp. 678. Cox, Blair & Kooreman, Edgar & Matthes and Harry S. Rooks for respondent, John J. Schmidt, (1) Appellant's point (1) rel......