Teague v. Irwin
| Decision Date | 26 July 1879 |
| Citation | 127 Mass. 217 |
| Parties | James W. Teague v. Samuel G. Irwin |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk.
Exceptions sustained.
E. C Gilman, for the plaintiff.
W Gaston & J. L. Thorndike, for the defendant.
Colt J.
The plaintiff, in the first count of his amended declaration, which is in tort, alleges that he bought stock in the Winthrop & Point Shirley Railroad Company of the defendant, who was then president of that corporation, upon false and fraudulent representations by the latter that the company was solvent; that its capital stock had all been paid in; that it was able to lay its track and provide rolling stock and pay all bills contracted; and that its stock was not for sale, and the plaintiff could not buy it anywhere but of him. There were other representations alleged to have been made, as to the present value of the property, which it is not necessary here to consider.
At the trial, the court ruled that the defendant's statements that the capital stock had been paid in, and that the company was perfectly solvent, were the only actionable representations set out in the declaration; and refused to allow evidence to be introduced by the plaintiff, as to the falsity of the other allegations, for the purpose of maintaining his action upon them.
But, in the opinion of the court, the statements that the company was able to lay its track and provide rolling stock, and pay all bills contracted, and that the stock was not for sale, and could not be bought anywhere but of the defendant, as made by the president of the corporation to one who was about to purchase, were statements which the jury would be warranted in finding were representations of facts of which he professed to have knowledge, and not the expression of an opinion or an estimate. When the language of the statement is capable of two interpretations with reference to the distinctions here noticed, it is proper that the question should be submitted to the jury with suitable instructions. The representations here made, if found by the jury to be representations of facts, were of facts calculated to deceive the plaintiff as to the value of the stock; facts of which the defendant had superior means of knowledge, and with reference to which he used no words of qualification or doubt, and the statements could not be properly ruled, as matter of law, to be the expression of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farmers' Savings Bank v. Jameson
...facts susceptible of knowledge, as distinguished from matters of mere opinion or belief.' See also Morse v. Shaw, 124 Mass. 59; Teague v. Irwin, 127 Mass. 217. two recent cases-- Way v. Ryther, 165 Mass. 226, 42 N.E. 1128, and Kilgore v. Bruce, 166 Mass. 136, 138, 44 N.E. 108--this court ha......
-
Farmers' Sav. Bank of Morrison v. Jameson
...that they were statements of fact susceptible of knowledge, as distinguished from matters of mere opinion or belief.’ See, also, Teague v. Irwin, 127 Mass. 217;Morse v. Shaw, 124 Mass. 59. In two recent cases, Way v. Ryther, 165 Mass. 226 , and Kilgore v. Bruce, 166 Mass. 136, 138 , this co......
-
Dye v. Farm Mortgage Inv. Co. of Topeka, Kan.
...v. Richards, 17 Utah, 226, 53 P. 1122; Crompton v. Beedle, 83 Vt. 287, 75 A. 331, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 748, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 399; Teague v. Irwin, 127 Mass. 217; Cockrell v. Henderson, 81 Kan. 335, 105 P. 443, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1; Byers v. Fed. Land Co. (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) 9; F. H. Smith C......
-
Rodee v. Seaman
...jury to determine. What we have said herein is sustained by the following authorities: 14 Am. & Eng. Law, 205-208; 20 Cyc. 126d; Teague v. Irwin, 127 Mass. 217; Nat. Bk. v. Hammond, 25 Colo. 367, 55 P. 1090; Collins v. Jackson, 54 Mich. 186, 19 N.W. 947; Simar v. Canaday, 53 N.Y. 298, 13 Am......