Sentman v. Gamble

• Decision Date: 14 March 1888
• Citation: Sentman v. Gamble, 69 Md. 293, 13 A. 58 (Md. 1888)
• Parties: SENTMAN v. GAMBLE ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Supreme Court

13 A. 58

69 Md. 293

SENTMAN v. GAMBLE ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 14, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Cecil county.

For former appeal in this case, see 11 A. 584.

This is the second appeal in this case. After it was remanded on the former appeal, judgment was entered for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. At the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence a promissory note for $300, dated February 22, 1886 made by the defendants, and payable to the order of the plaintiff six months after date. The defendants proved that the note was given in payment for the wood on a tract of land which had been purchased from the plaintiff by the defendants Gamble and Logan, the defendant Hammond being merely the surety on the note, and then offered in evidence the contract by which the wood was purchased. This contract was under the hands and seals of the plaintiff and Gamble and Logan. By it the plaintiff sold all the wood, with certain reservations and exceptions, which he had purchased from T. Snowden Thomas on a tract of land lying north of the east and west road connecting the road from Bayview to north-east with that from Bayview to Charlestown, except a few acres on the west of the Bayview and Charlestown road, adjoining the land of L. P Maffitt. The defendant further proved that before the contract was signed Gamble and Logan went with the plaintiff several times to examine the tract; that they walked over the land and examined the wood, and that the plaintiff pointed out to Gamble and Logan the boundaries; that he told them that the eastern boundary between the Thomas tract and the land of J. L. McDaniel was marked by an old fence; that neither Gamble nor Logan knew where the boundaries of the Thomas tract were, and that, relying on said representations of the plaintiff in regard to the eastern boundary of the Thomas tract, they signed the contract; that the true line of the eastern boundary of the tract was westward of the old fence, and that between this fence and the true eastern boundary there were about 12 acres; that they cut on these 12 acres about 101 cords of wood, which they were obliged to leave there, and that McDaniel had sued them for the trespass. The defendants also proved that they had cut other wood on the tract, and sold some of it, and had made some of it into charcoal; that they had sold about 9,000 bushels of charcoal. It was also proved that a few days after the note in suit became due Gamble and Logan tendered to plaintiff $160, which he refused to accept. The plaintiff then testified that prior to the contract with Gamble and Logan he had been in negotiation with Thomas for the purchase of the chestnut rail and post timber; that he had no use for the cordwood on the tract, but that Gamble and Logan told him that if he would buy all the wood on the tract, they would buy from him all the cord-wood for $300, and that he could reserve the chestnut rail and post timber; that he knew nothing of the lines of the tract himself, but that Thomas the owner, walked with him over said tract, and pointed out what he said were the boundaries; that he pointed out the old fence as the eastern boundary between himself and McDaniel and that afterwards, he, the plaintiff, walked over the tract with Logan and Gamble, and told them that Thomas told him that the fence was the eastern boundary of the tract; that he did not profess to know anything about the lines himself, but merely repeated to Logan and Gamble what Thomas had told him, and told them that Thomas had so told him; that after he had walked over the tract with Logan and Gamble he bought the wood on the tract from Thomas by written contract. The tract is described in this contract in the same terms as those used in the contract with Logan and Gamble. Plaintiff further proved that he acted in perfect good faith in making the representations to Logan and Gamble in regard to the eastern boundary of the tract, and that he made them solely on Thomas' representations to him, as he told Logan and Gamble at the time. Defendant offered evidence by Thomas that he had never pointed out the old fence to the plaintiff as the boundary line. The plaintiff offered five prayers, all of which were rejected by the court, and the defendant offered one prayer, which the court granted. In this court the plaintiff waived his second, third, and fourth prayers. His first and fifth prayers are as follows: " First. If the jury find that the plaintiffs and defendants executed and delivered the within contract between them, dated the 26th of February, 1886, and that, in pursuance of the stipulations therein contained, the defendants executed and delivered the promissory note sued on, and that said note has not been paid, then plaintiff is entitled to recover in his action, unless the jury further find that the defendants were induced to sign said contract of 26th February, 1886, by the fraud of the plaintiff." " Fifth. If the jury believe that the plaintiff made certain representations to the defendants prior to the signing of the written contract of the 26th February, 1886, which has been offered in evidence in regard to the location of the divisional line between the lands of T. Snowden Thomas and J. L. McDaniel, which representations were in point of fact untrue, but that the plaintiff believed them to be true, and acted bona fide and honestly in making them, and because the owner of the said tracts, namely, T. Snowden Thomas, had told him prior to that time that they were true, and he, the plaintiff, believed him, then such representations will be no bar to a recovery in this case, unless the jury further believe said representations were recklessly or negligently made." The defendant's prayer is as follows: "If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendants Gamble and Logan were induced to enter into the contract of the 26th of February, 1886, by the representation of the plaintiff that he was the owner of the wood on the tract of land mentioned in the evidence, up to the fence laid down on the plat offered in evidence, and that but for such representation the defendants would...