Rand v. Webber
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. Assumpsit, alleging that, on the twenty-second day of February, A. D., 1867, in consideration that the plaintiff would buy “the Samuel Bean farm” in Hudson for five hundred dollars, the defendant promised to sell her the farm for that sum, and promised that it “included a certain piece of good, cleared land containing about ten acres and lying on the side of the road opposite to the main body of the farm, of the value of two hundred dollars; ” in consideration…
Read the full summary
On report. Assumpsit, alleging that, on the twenty-second day of February, A. D., 1867, in consideration that the plaintiff would buy “the Samuel Bean farm” in Hudson for five hundred dollars, the defendant promised to sell her the farm for that sum, and promised that it “included a certain piece of good, cleared land containing about ten acres and lying on the side of the road opposite to the main body of the farm, of the value of two hundred dollars; ” in consideration whereof the plaintiff promised to buy said farm; but the defendant “subtly intending to deceive and defraud the plaintiff,”…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.
The defendant deeded to the plaintiff a piece of land. It appears that the deed does not include a parcel of about ten acres, which the defendant represented he was conveying, and which the plaintiff supposed she was getting, when the deed was made. The omission was occasioned, either by the mutual mistake of the parties, or by fraud on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff does not rescind the contract on this account. She relies upon a special count in assumpsit and. a count for money *193had and received, to recover back so much of the purchase money, as said omitted parcel was actually…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bartlett v. DrakeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Morse v. BrackettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
3Cited by1 opinion
- D'Olier Engineering Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1917