Warman v. Delaney
| Citation | 148 Conn. 469,172 A.2d 188 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 13 June 1961 |
| Parties | Donald S. WARMAN et al. v. Ethel G. DELANEY. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
E. Gaynor Brennan, Stamford, with whom, on the brief, were Melvin M. Dichter and E. Gaynor Brennan, Jr., Stamford, for appellant (defendant).
John J. Sullivan, Greenwich, with whom was William C. Strong, Greenwich, for appellees (plaintiffs).
Before BALDWIN, C. J., and MURPHY, SHEA, BORDON * and TROLAND, ** JJ.
In April, 1955, the plaintiffs, husband and wife, were desirous of purchasing a new home, in Darien. Their attention was drawn to the residence of the defendant by a real estate broker. They were not familiar with this property. The plaintiff Eleanore Warman first looked at it in the middle of a week in April, 1955, when the defendant showed her the interior of the house. Thereafter, Eleanore reported her interest in the house to her husband, and on the following Saturday they camo to examine the property together. After they had looked over the interior of the house, they joined the defendant on the lawn on the easterly side of the property. They then walked around the property. The defendant at this time knew that the plaintiffs were prospective purchasers.
The defendant and her husband had acquired the property several years before. He died in 1954, and the defendant became the sole owner and occupier of it. During the period of her ownership, the lawn on the easterly side of the property was in substantially the same condition and presented substantially the same appearance as at the time she showed it to the plaintiffs. She pointed out to the plaintiffs a definite marker for the northwestern corner of her property and for the southern boundary. The house faces east. As the plaintiffs and defendant approached the easterly side of the property, it appeared as a mowed, well-kept grass area extending from the front of the house to uncultivated woods and undergrowth. The area included flower beds, a woodpile, a flagstone walk leading from the driveway turn-around to the woodpile, a clothesline screened by rustic fencing to the right of the flagstone steps, and some trees, including several small fruit trees, and flowers. The distance from the front of the house to the undergrowth is fifty-four and four-tenths feet. There was no marker or monument on the lawn indicating the easterly boundary. When the parties had arrived and were in front of the house, the plaintiff Donald Warman asked the defendant, 'Where is the boundary line on this side of the house?' and the defendant replied, in the hearing of the plaintiffs, 'Where the lawn ends,' or 'At the edge of the grass.' This statement and the visible conditions led the plaintiffs to believe that all of the easterly lawn area, with the improvements thereon was owned by the defendant. The defendant also stated, with reference to two fruit trees within the lawn area, 'I planted them myself.' No other representations were made as to the boundary on the easterly side of the property.
The plaintiffs were pleased with the house and grounds and particularly the lawn area as it appeared to be. In making the statements, the defendant had no intent to deceive or defraud the plaintiffs. She believed her statements to be true, but she made them recklessly, in ignorance of the true facts and without any reasonable basis for the statements. A few days later, relying on the defendant's statements, the plaintiffs contracted to purchase the property for $55,000. The defendant knew or should have known that the plaintiffs were relying on her representations in purchasing the premises. Between the inspection of the premises and the taking of title, the plaintiffs did not cause a survey to be made, but relied solely on the defendant's representations as to the easterly boundary. There was no map on file in the town records of Darien showing the location of the house on the property.
Several months after the purchase, the plaintiffs learned that the woodpile, the flagstone steps, the turn-around, the place where the clothesline stood and the two fruit trees, all of which they had viewed and discussed with the defendant, were not on their property. A survey then made showed that the easterly boundary was thirty feet nearer to the easterly side of the house than represented by the defendant. The description of the property in the contract between the parties and in the deed did not in fact embrace this thirty feet of improved area. The contract contained the following provision: 'The purchaser further agrees...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foley v. Huntington Co.
...prior representations could not be used to supersede the contract. The trial court rejected the argument, citing Warman v. Delaney, 148 Conn. 469, 474, 172 A.2d 188 (1961). The court stated that "[i]n a claim for misrepresentation, a tort claim, a plaintiff is not seeking to add to or chang......
-
Williams Ford, Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co.
......Frederick Scholes Agency v. Mitchell, 191 Conn. 353, 359, 464 A.2d 795 (1983); Johnson v. Healy, 176 Conn. 97, 102, 405 A.2d 54 (1978); Warman v. Delaney, 148 Conn. 469, 473, 172 A.2d 188 (1961); Boucher v. Valus, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 661, 665-66, 298 A.2d 238 (1972). The governing principles ......
-
McCann Real Equities Series XXII, LLC v. David McDermott Chevrolet, Inc.
...Foley v. Huntington Co., 42 Conn.App. 712, 682 A.2d 1026, cert. denied, 239 Conn. 931, 683 A.2d 397 (1996), citing Warman v. Delaney, 148 Conn. 469, 474, 172 A.2d 188 (1961),24 for the proposition that "[i]n a claim for misrepresentation, a tort claim, a plaintiff is not seeking to add to o......
-
McCann Real Equities v. Mcdermott Chevrolet
...Foley v. Huntington Co., 42 Conn.App. 712, 682 A.2d 1026, cert. denied, 239 Conn. 931, 683 A.2d 397 (1996), citing Warman v. Delaney, 148 Conn. 469, 474, 172 A.2d 188 (1961),24 for the proposition that "[i]n a claim for misrepresentation, a tort claim, a plaintiff is not seeking to add to o......