Williams v. Maislen

• Citation: 165 A. 455,116 Conn. 433
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 21 March 1933
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. MAISLEN et al.

165 A. 455

116 Conn. 433

WILLIAMS v. MAISLEN et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 21, 1933

Appeal from City Court of Hartford; Herbert A. Ross, Judge.

Action by Rosena Edith Williams against Max Maislen and others for fraud and conspiracy tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendants.

No error.

Isaac Nassau, of Hartford, for appellants.

Aaron J. Palmer and Donald Ruffkess, both of Hartford, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

AVERY Justice.

The plaintiff brought her action in two counts against the defendants Maislen, Hoffson, and Bonasso. The first count alleged fraudulent representations; the second, a conspiracy. The jury returned a verdict against all three defendants on both counts which the court, on motion, set aside as to defendant Hoffson on the first count; and thereafter judgment was entered, and the defendants appealed. At the trial before the jury, the plaintiff offered evidence to prove, and claimed to have proved, that shortly before January 7, 1930 she owned three lots in Bloomfield. As the result of a newspaper advertisement, she called at the office of the defendant Maislen, who told her that he knew a man, Bonasso who would buy the lots. Several days later the defendant Bonasso came to her home, and the next day he went with her to see the lots. Thereafter they returned to Maislen's office, where they found him and the defendant Hoffson. Maislen, Bonasso, and the plaintiff discussed there terms of sale in Hoffson's presence, until an agreement was reached, and an appointment made to execute a deed the next day. Later, on the same day, Maislen and Hoffson went to the office of an attorney in Hartford, and instructed him to draw up a warranty deed and note for the unpaid balance. The next day, January 7th, Bonasso took the plaintiff to the attorney's office, where she executed a deed to the lots to Bonasso for $50 in cash and an unsecured note for $450. The lots then had a value of $500. The plaintiff was induced to execute the deed in reliance on Maislen's representation that Bonasso had a position at the Hotel Bond and was a wealthy man. These representations were false and fraudulent, and were made with the intent to induce the plaintiff to sell her lots to Bonasso for his unsecured note, and the plaintiff was deceived and defrauded thereby. A week later Bonasso exchanged the lots with Louis Kupperstein for property on Euclid avenue and immediately afterward gave Hoffson a mortgage on that property. Six months later, when the note was not paid at maturity, the plaintiff went to Maislen, who advised her to attach the Euclid avenue property, and she did so. This property was heavily incumbered at that time, and the plaintiff's attachment was extinguished by the foreclosure of a mortgage held by the Maison Company, a corporation owned and controlled by Hoffson and his wife, who was Maislen's sister. All these acts were done as a result of a deliberate plan and conspiracy between Bonasso, Maislen, and Hoffson to cheat and deceive the plaintiff and deprive her of her property fraudulently; and the plaintiff was deceived and fraudulently deprived of her property as the result thereof.

The defendants offered evidence to prove, and claimed to have proved, that, at the time of this transaction, Bonasso was a man of good financial standing and credit; that he had bought and sold real estate through Maislen and had visited his office many times. In January, 1930, he met the plaintiff at Maislen's office and was told by her that she had lots for sale. He visited the lots with her, and, after some negotiation, they agreed on terms. He instructed an attorney to prepare a deed and note, and the transaction was consummated at the attorney's office January 7, 1930. Bonasso intended to pay the note, and still intends to do so. Neither Maislen nor Bonasso made any statements to the plaintiff to the effect that Bonasso was employed at the Hotel Bond. Maislen's only interest in the purchase of the lots was that of broker.

On this appeal, the defendants claim error (1) in the finding (2) in the charge; (3) in rulings on evidence; and (4) in various other rulings at the trial. In their brief, however, emphasis is placed upon claimed errors in the charge and in the admission of evidence; and these are the only reasons of appeal which will require discussion. Upon this subject, the first claim of the appellants is that the court did not adequately instruct the jury upon the issue of fraudulent representation involved in the first count of the complaint. No requests for instructions to the jury were filed by either party. The court, however, called the attention of the jury to the allegations in the complaint and to the testimony, and correctly instructed them as to all the elements necessary to enable the plaintiff to recover in an action for fraudulent representations, and further informed them that all these elements must be proved, and the absence of proof as to any element would be fatal to recovery, that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show all of them, and that fraud is never to be presumed, but must be proved. Considering the charge as a whole, we think it was adequate for the guidance of the jury upon...