Weeks v. Currier

• Decision Date: 20 October 1898
• Citation: 172 Mass. 53,51 N.E. 416
• Parties: WEEKS v. CURRIER et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

172 Mass. 53

51 N.E. 416

WEEKS v. CURRIER et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 20, 1898

COUNSEL

J.R. Thayer and A.P. Rugg, for plaintiff.

Herbert Parker, for defendants.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

This case comes before us on a report containing a finding of facts, and showing that the defendants joined an answer in demurrer with their answer in matters of fact. The judge found that the plaintiff made a deed of his land, which was executed without inserting the name of the grantee in the blank spaces left for it, and was delivered to the defendant Currier. Currier was acting as an agent and broker for the defendant Curry, and afterwards he filled the blanks with the name of Curry, caused one Mulvey to write his name as a witness upon the deed, although Mulvey did not see the plaintiff or his wife sign it, and then caused it to be recorded in the registry in the county in New Hampshire where the land was situated. The judge also found that the plaintiff was induced to sign and deliver it by representations of Currier that a house and lot owned by Curry, which were in the hands of Currier for sale, and which were conveyed to the plaintiff in exchange for the property described in the deed from the plaintiff, had recently been sold for $3,200; that they were rented for $14 per month; and that there were only certain named incumbrances upon the property. All of these representations were false. They were made by Currier as of matters within his personal knowledge and they were relied upon by the plaintiff as inducements to make the contract. The plaintiff offered to reconvey the property conveyed to him by Curry, and demanded a conveyance to himself of the property described in the deed delivered to Currier. These facts are all set out in the plaintiff's bill, and the representations are alleged to have been fraudulently made by the defendants.

The principal ground of the demurrer is that the plaintiff cannot have relief in equity, because he has a full, adequate, and complete remedy at law. Since the enactment of St.1877, c 178 (Pub.St. c. 151, § 1), relief may be had in this commonwealth in equity to set aside a deed of real estate procured by fraud, and to obtain a reconveyance. The remedy at law by a writ of entry is concurrent. Billings v Mann, 156 Mass. 203, 30 N.E. 1136; Emerson v. Atkinson, 159 Mass. 356-361, 34 N.E. 516; Nathan v. Nathan, 166 Mass. 294, 44 N.E. 221. Fraudulent representations and oral misstatements made with intent to deceive are not so merged in a written instrument procured by means of them that they may not be made the basis of a decree to set it aside. The demurrer must therefore be overruled.

It follows upon the facts found that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree against the defendants. The false statements found to have been made were material, and being relied upon, they entered into the substance of the contract. Medbury v....