Butterfield v. Barber
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Oase for deceitful representations by a debtor to Ms creditor, the' plaintiff having subsequently purchased the claim from the latter in the form of a promissory note.
1Per curiam
Assuming that the representations testified to by the plaintiff were made by the defendant, the testimony shows that they were made for the purpose of being communicated to Murphy, to procure an extension of time for the payment of his claim against the defendant. At the time they were made the defendant had no expectation that the note, which was subsequently made, was to be taken by the plaintiff, who, in the' meantime, had purchased the claim from Murphy. We do not think that in these circumstances the plaintiff had the right to rely on the representations, if they were made, because they…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Cohen v. Citizens National Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Carlson v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- McCane v. WokounSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920
- Cliftex Clothing Co. v. Di SantoSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1959