Martin v. Jordan
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. Case, for deceit in the sale of a farm. The verdict was for the plaintiff. The case is stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
The only question is, whether a false affirmation respecting the quantity of hay cut on a farm, made by the seller to the buyer, will support an action for deceit.
The distinction between those allegations, which, if false, will support an action on the case for deceit, and those which will not, was carefully examined in Long v. Woodman, 58 Maine, 49. It is there said, that,
‘ To entitle a party to maintain an action for deceit by means of false representations, he must, among other things, show that the defendant made false and fraudulent assertions in regard to some ' fact or facts material…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mooney v. MillerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
3Cited by5 opinions
- Veilleux v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.District Court, D. Maine · 1998
- Condas v. AdamsUtah Supreme Court · 1964
- Messer v. SmythSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
- Gill v. FlynnCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- LOBSTER 207 LLC v. PETTEGROWDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2022