Beach v. Bemis
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for deceit in the sale of a horse. The answer denied deceit. At the trial in the superior court, before .Pitman, J., the defendant, in reply to the plaintiff’s case, testified that he purchased the horse of Oakes A. Dixon the day before he sold it to the plaintiff, and that all he knew of the horse was what Dixon told him.
Read the full summary
Tort for deceit in the sale of a horse. The answer denied deceit. At the trial in the superior court, before .Pitman, J., the defendant, in reply to the plaintiff’s case, testified that he purchased the horse of Oakes A. Dixon the day before he sold it to the plaintiff, and that all he knew of the horse was what Dixon told him. The defendant and two other witnesses were then allowed, against the plaintiff’s objection, to testify to the substance of the conversation between the defendant and Dixon at the time the defendant bought the horse, and at which the plaintiff was not present. Dixon was…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
As the scienter was directly in issue, the defendant had a right, in answer to the case made against him, to testify that he had no knowledge of the existence of the alleged unsoundness or faults of the horse. But a mere general disclaimer of such knowledge would not of itself answer the purpose of a full defence, inasmuch as a.false representation, recklessly made, without any knowledge, information or grounds of belief, would not differ in its legal effect from an assertion known to be false. It was therefore material to him to show what information he had on the subject, and to satisfy the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Morgan County Coal Co. v. HaldermanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- Connelly v. BrownSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
- DuRoy & Le Maistre, Inc. v. GillmoreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
- Henderson-Achert Lithographing Co. v. Belford, Clarke, & Co.Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1890