Cooper v. Lovering

A., who had never been on the oil lands, employed his brother to examine them; the brother wrote letters to him describing certain property as good, and saying that i i might be sold for a higher price than he had the refusal of it for; A. read these letters to B., wl‘ o told A. that, if he bought, it would be because of his confidence in him, to which A. rt plied that his brother was trustworthy; and because of these and other like statements B. bought the property. In an action for the price of the property by A., to which B. set up in defence fraudulent misrepresentations by A., the judge instructed the jury that a fraudulent misrepresentation which would enable B. to avoid the contract must be a misrepresentation of matters of fact and made by A. as of his own knowledge; that no expression of opinion or judgment made in good faith, and no statements made in good faith, and known to be founded on the representations of others, would constitute such misrepresentation; that no statements as to the value or cost of the property, or of offers made therefor by others, if untrue, were sufficient to sustain this defence; that if A. made false representations as to the contents of the letters, or in bad faith withheld any information therein contained upon any material particulars, the allegations of fraud were sustained; but that if he truly read the contents thereof, believing them to be true, having no personal knowledge himself of the property, and so representing to B., such acts would not be fraudulent. Heldy that B. had no ground of exception.

Contract on a promissory note, given by the defendant to the plaintiff. Answer, that the note was given for the purchase of oil property, so called, in Pennsylvania, concerning which the plaintiff had made fraudulent representations. At the trial in the superior court, before Reed, J., the evidence tended to show “ that the plaintiff, who had never himself been to the oil regions, employed his brother, who was going from Boston to St. Louis, where he resided, to stop, on his way, among the oil lands of Pennsylvania, and, if he found anything valuable, to inform him thereof; that the plaintiff received letters from his brother, informing him of the property in question; that these letters were read by the plaintiff to the defendant, and contained statements that the land was very valuable for farming purposes, that there were indications of oil upon it, that there was great excitement in the neighborhood, caused by the oil discoveries, that the land in question might be sold for a higher price than he had agreed to give, and that he had the refusal of it, or a bond for a deed of it, at the price of §18,000 for fifty acres; that shortly afterwards another letter was received by the plaintiff from his brother, informing him of another piece of land for the same price, a part of the same farm, consisting of fifty acres, the indications of oil on which were quite equal, if not superior, to those upon the former piece ; that this letter, or extracts thereof, were also read by the plaintiff to the defendant; that the defendant told the plain tiff that, if he bought, it would be because of his confidence in him; that the plaintiff told the defendant, in substance, that his brother was trustworthy and reliable; and that, because of these and other like statements, the defendant was induced to and did buy.” The testimony of the plaintiff tended to show that “ he had never, at the time of the interview between himself and the defendant, and at the time of the contract, been upon or into the neighborhood of the land in question ; that the defendant knew this; and that he believed and relied upon the representations contained in the letters.” The judge, among other instructions, instructed the jury “ that a fraudulent misrepresentation which would enable the defendant to avoid his contract must be a misrepresentation of matters of fact, and made by the plaintiff as of his own knowledge; that no expression of opinion or judgment made in good faith, and no statements made in good faith, and known to be founded on the representations of others, would constitute such misrepresentation ; that no statements as to the value or cost of the property,, or of offers made therefor by others, if untrue, were in law fraudulent or sufficient to sustain this defence; that if the plaintiff made false representations as to the contents of the letters from his brother, or in bad faith withheld any information therein contained upon any material particulars, the allegations of fraud were sustained ; but that if he truly read or stated the contents thereof, relying upon them, and believing them to be true, having no personal knowledge himself of the property, and so representing to the defendant, such acts would not be fraudulent.” The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant alleged exceptions.