Lodigiani v. Potter

Exceptions overruled. The plaintiffs in their brief argue only questions related to a count alleging deceit. The ease is here on the plaintiffs’ exceptions to the denial of a request for a ruling and to the allowance of the defendants’ motion for judgment on an auditor’s report finding generally for the defendants on all counts. The exception to the denial of a requested ruling has no standing, for the auditor’s findings were to be final. See Levine v. Lawrence & Co. Inc. 305 Mass. 210, 211 . The auditor found that an agent for the defendants, vendors of vacant land, stated to the plaintiffs, prospective purchasers, that the lot “would be suitable property for ... a residence and that the plaintiffs could obtain a permit.” After water percolation tests, the building inspector restricted use of the lot to “a house with no cellar.” The auditor found that “no representations were made . . . which were false and material” with the intention that the plaintiffs rely on them. No subsidiary finding of the auditor leads us to infer (see United States Fid. & Guar. Go. v. English Gonstr. Go. 303 Mass. 105, 108-109 ) that the statement of the agent meant that the lot would be suitable for a house with a cellar. We conclude, as did the auditor, that there was no actionable misrepresentation.