Smith v. Bowker-Torrey Co.
| Citation | 199 F. 985 |
| Decision Date | 06 November 1912 |
| Docket Number | 176 (C.C. 725). |
| Parties | SMITH et al. v. BOWKER-TORREY CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Frederick H. Nash, of Boston, Mass., receiver, pro se.
Brandeis Dunbar & Nutter, of Boston, Mass., for Grafton Sanderson and Waltham Trust Co.
The receiver's petition alleges that Sanderson acted in the matter to which the petition relates as agent for the Waltham Trust Company, that the fact of said agency was undisclosed and that Sanderson pretended to be acting in an independent capacity. It also sets forth certain representations by Sanderson, charged to be false, and that by said representations certain sums were procured.
The demurrers raise the question whether the representations set forth constitute in law such fraud as to entitle the receiver to a rescission.
It is at least doubtful whether the doctrine in respect to the latitude which is accorded to a merchant in commending or puffing his goods has a proper application to such false representations as are set forth in the petition. Harris v. Rosenberger, 145 F. 449, 455, 76 C.C.A. 225, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 762.
It cannot be said as a matter of law that the statement alleged to have been made by Sanderson, that he was pledging his own credit, was not a substantial inducement to a contract for the payment of so high a rate as 3 per cent. per month for a loan upon security which was immediately passed over to the Trust Company and was accepted by it as sufficient security for a loan at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum.
The receiver contends that the present case is a proper one for the application of the rule that, if the questions of law may turn upon a slight variation between the facts as stated by the bill and those which may be established by the evidence the court will not support a demurrer but will permit the respondent to insist upon the same defense by answer. This rule is well established, and was applied in this circuit in Snyder v. De Forrest Wireless Telegraph Co. (C.C.) 154 F. 142, 144. See, also, Virginia v. West Virginia, 206 U.S. 290, 27 Sup.Ct. 732, 51 L.Ed. 1068; Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125, 144, 145, 22 Sup.Ct. 552, 46 L.Ed. 838; Rankin v. Miller (C.C.) 130 F. 229.
If it be true, as alleged, that the Trust Company was the undisclosed principal in the transaction, it would seem to be a proper party to the accounting, especially as the petition contains a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickey v. Volker
... ... 429; Merchants Bank v. Dent, 102 Miss. 455; ... Shearer v. Shearer, 50 Miss. 113; Hamilton v ... Lockhart, 41 Miss. 460; Smith v. Loomis, 5 ... N.J.Eq. 60; Day v. Cole, 56 Mich. 294; Hanlon v ... Primrose, 56 F. 600; Standard Oil v. Southern Pac ... Co., 42 F ... ...
-
Albee Godfrey Whale Creek Co. v. Perkins
...783 (C. C. A. 5); Rankin v. Miller (C. C.) 130 F. 229; Snyder v. DeForest Wireless Tel. Co. (C. C.) 154 F. 142, 144; Smith v. Bowker Torrey Co. (D. C.) 199 F. 985; Ralston Steel Car Co. v. National Dump Car Co. (D. C.) 222 F. 590; Oneida Community, Limited, v. Fouke Fur Co. (D. C.) 286 F. 7......
-
Oneida Community v. Fouke Fur Co.
...U.S. 125, 145, 22 Sup.Ct. 552, 46 L.Ed. 838; Virginia v. West Virginia, 206 U.S. 290, 322, 27 Sup.Ct. 732, 51 L.Ed. 1068; Smith v. Bowker-Torrey Co. (D.C.) 199 F. 985; Wright v. Barnard (D.C.) 233 F. The motion for preliminary injunction will therefore be denied, with costs, and the motion ......