Bates v. YoungermanBates v. Youngerman
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Gardner
Thе plaintiffs offered oral representations or assurances made by the defendant Rubinouvz, in regard to the credit and pecuniary responsibility оf the defendant Younger-man, that Youngеrman might obtain credit. This was offered for the purpose of showing that the plaintiffs were fraudulently induced to make the sale to Youngerman. This evidence comes within the provisions of the Pub. Sts. c. 78, § 4. The false representations were made concerning the defendant Younger-man, with an intent to induce thе plaintiffs to part with their propеrty to Youngerman on credit. This is within ‘the prohibition of the statute. Kimball v. Comstock, 14 Gray, 508. Wells v. Prince, 15 Gray, 562. Mann v. Blanchard, 2 Allen, 386. McKinney v. Whiting, 8 Allen, 207. In their offer of рroof, the plaintiffs did not go far enough to take it out of the limitations of the statute.
At the time of the sale, the defendant Youngerman, in the presence of Rubinouvz, made a written statement “ as a basis of credit for present and all future purchases.” The manager of *124the plaintiffs’ firm in New York testified that, “ after the statement was made and signed, I gave the defendant Younger-mаn a line of credit, relying solely on said statement and the oral reprеsentations or assurances of the defendant Rubinouvz.” These representations or assurances were rightly еxcluded, as we have already shown. There is nothing in the bill of exceptions to show that any part of the written stаtement was untrue. It is difficult to see what evidence of misrepresentatiоn or fraud was laid before the jury to show a conversion of the plaintiffs’ рroperty by the defendants, or either of them.
If the property was obtаined from the plaintiffs by the defendant Youngerman under the form of a sale, but in fаct by misrepresentation and fraud, and the defendant Rubinouvz obtained it of Yоungerman with knowledge of the fraud, the plaintiffs could maintain trover for it, beсause the possession both of Yоungerman and of Rubinouvz was wrongful, and constituted a conversion. Stevens v. Austin, 1 Met. 557. In the case at bar, we find no evidence of a conversion by the defendants, jointly or severally.
Exceptions overruled.