Silverman v. Rothfarb
| Decision Date | 19 January 1924 |
| Citation | 247 Mass. 456,142 N.E. 152 |
| Parties | SILVERMAN et al. v. ROTHFARB et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County.
Action of contract by Benjamin Silverman and others against H. Rothfarb and others on a promissory note. Verdict for defendants, and plaintiffs bring exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
The court excluded the following questions to witness Rothfarb, Sr., the broker:
‘You all agreed between yourselves that Mr. Zintz was to write down in the agreement all the promises and all the obligations of the parties, did you not?’ and ‘Now, so far as you have heard them say there, at the time they negotiated this transaction, they relied upon your recommendation, is that right?’S. Brenner, of Boston, for plaintiffs.
A. J. Berkwitz, of Boston, for defendants.
[1] This is an action of contract by the payees against the makers of a promissory note for $300 dated on June 15, 1922, payable the next day, and given as part of a deposit for the purchase of real estate. The main defense is that the defendants were induced to agree to buy the real estate and consequently to sign the note by reason of the fraud and misrepresentations made to them by the plaintiffs. There was ample evidense to prove such fraud, and misrepresentations, as the inducement to the signing and delivery of the note. It need not be recited. The jury might well have found on the evidence that the plaintiffs intentionally made false statements of material facts as distinguished from matters of opinion and from dealers' talk, which were believed and relied on by the defendants to their damage. If these were found to be the facts a defense to the note was established. Kilgore v. Bruce, 166 Mass. 136, 44 N. E. 108;Bates v. Cashman, 230 Mass. 167, 168, 119 N. E. 663.
[2] The testimony of one of the defendants that he said to the plaintiffs that he wanted to look over the property, but that one of the plaintiffs ‘insisted that the agreement must be signed then and there or there would be no sale,’ was competent as a part of the conversation in which the specific misrepresentations were made. The remark of the court in admitting this testimony, to the effect that the urgency of the sellers in trying to push the bargain to completion without giving the buyers a chance to look at the property was a circumstance entitled to consideration was not open to exception. This evidence also was competent on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp.
...are relied on. Fay v. Hunt, 190 Mass. 378, 381, 77 N. E. 502;Commonwealth v. Dyer, 243 Mass. 472, 508, 138 N. E. 296;Silverman v. Rothfarb, 247 Mass. 456, 458, 142 N. E. 152.Commonwealth v. Booth (Mass.) 165 N. E. 29;Smith v. Boston Elevated Railway (Mass.) 165 N. E. 393. We have examined a......
-
Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England
...243 Mass. 472, 508, 138 N. E. 296;Commissioner of Banks v. Cosmopolitan Trust Co., 247 Mass. 334, 346, 142 N. E. 100;Silverman v. Rothfarb, 247 Mass. 456, 142 N. E. 152;Barnes v. Springfield, 268 Mass. 497, 504, 168 N. E. 78;Mullen v. Board of Sewer Commissioners of Milton (Mass.) 182 N. E.......
-
Barnes v. City of Springfield
...the statement in the petitioners' brief that they do not waive any of those which have not been argued. Silverman v. Rothfarb, 247 Mass. 456, 142 N. E. 152. The orders denying motions for continuance and for suspensions of the hearings must stand. They were filed many years after the first ......
-
Grant v. Pizzano
...243 Mass. 472, 508, 138 N. E. 296;Commissioner of Banks v. Cosmopolitan Trust Co., 247 Mass. 334, 346, 142 N. E. 100;Silverman v. Rothfarb, 247 Mass. 456, 458, 142 N. E. 152. [7][8][9] The defendant first contends that because the plaintiff in his bill alleges that he is ready to pay the pu......