Connelly v. Brown
Connelly v. Brown.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
•Bingham, J.
To maintain the action, proof was required that the defendant had made a false representation of a material fact, knowing it to be false, or having no knowledge or belief as to its truth, and that the plaintiff, in ignorance of its falsity, had relied upon it and been damaged.
Springfield v. Drake, 58 N. H. 19, 21;
Beach v. Bemis, 107 Mass. 498, 499 .
As a defence to the action, it became important for the defendant to prove that when she made the representation she understood and believed it to be true. A circumstance tending to prove her belief -yvas the statement of the landlord, in which he urged her to remain as tenant. Whether the assertion which the statement contained was true or false was immaterial; but the fact that such a statement had been made by the landlord and acted upon by the defendant was original and material evidence. This being so, the statement could be proved by the testimony of any one who was present when it was made, without being objectionable to the hearsay rule.
French v. Smith, 4 Vt. 363, 366, 367 ;
Bacon v. Towne, 4 Cush. 217 , 238, 240;
Blanchard v. Child, 7 Gray 155 , 157;
Whitehead v. Scott, 1 Moo. & R. 2;
Shott v. Strealfield, 1 Moo. & R. 8; 1 Gr. Ev., s. 101; 3 Wig. Ev., ss.
1768, 1788, 1789.
Exception overruled.
All concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.