54 U.S. 198 | SCOTUS | 1852
SAMPSON B. LORD AND GEORGE W. JENNESS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN GODDARD.
Supreme Court of United States.
*200 It was argued by Mr. Norris, for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. Washburn, for the defendant in error.
*209 Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court.
Goddard sued Lord & Jenness in the Circuit Court of New Hampshire, alleging that the defendants by letter recommended West & Daby as men well worthy of credit, and good for what they wished to purchase; that they were dealers in coal, lumber, lime, &c., and that West, one of the firm, was visiting Bangor, Maine, for the purpose of purchasing lumber for the New York market.
*210 The letter, set forth in the declaration, was dated at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and directed to Goddard, at Bangor, Maine. West & Daby resided in New York.
On the faith of this letter Goddard credited West & Daby for a cargo of lumber worth nearly two thousand dollars, giving them four months time: for which lumber West & Daby never paid, having been insolvent when the letter of recommendation was given, and so continued afterwards. It is clear that they were mere insolvent adventurers, without property, and entitled to no credit or confidence.
The declaration alleges that the letter was given by Lord & Jenness with an intention to deceive and defraud Goddard; and that they did procure credit for West & Daby falsely and fraudulently. On the plea of the general issue the parties went to trial, when it appeared that Lord had a son residing in New York, who, on the 28th of October, 1847, gave a letter of introduction to West, dated at New York, and directed to Lord, the father, at Portsmouth, N.H. The letter recommended the firm of West & Daby, as fully worthy of credit, and requested that Lord, the defendant, should recommend West & Daby to others. West delivered this letter, and on the same day got the one on which the suit is founded. It was written by the wife of the younger Lord, who was in Portsmouth, at the instance of West; he being known to her, but not known to Lord or Jenness the defendants. They seem to have acted on the information contained in the younger Lord's letter and on the representations of his wife.
On this state of facts, the court charged the jury 1. That, as a general rule, it must be proved that the representations made were false; and that the defendants made them, knowing they were false, and intended to defraud the plaintiff; and if the defendants made the representations, believing them to be true, they were not liable. "But a party, if stating positively that a person is entitled to credit, should do it from his own knowledge, or from full and proper inquiries; and then he is not liable if the debtor is insolvent, unless the jury see circumstances in the case of real fraud. But, if a party states this positively as to the credit of an individual, and does it ignorantly, not knowing the credit of the person recommended, and without making full and proper inquiries, and the statements turn out to be false, the jury may infer that those so recommending did wrong, and deceived, because they must know that third persons are likely to rely on their stating what they personally know, or had duly inquired about, or what they had good reason to suppose their information as to it was sufficient and true. If the defendants in this case did not make the recommendation upon *211 such authority or information as you may think under the instructions they ought to have acted upon, you will charge them."
The jury found for the plaintiff on this charge, and the only question is whether it was proper.
The gist of the action is fraud in the defendants, and damage to the plaintiff. Fraud means an intention to deceive. If there was no such intention; if the party honestly stated his own opinion, believing at the time that he stated the truth, he is not liable in this form of action, although the representation turned out to be entirely untrue. Since the decision in Haycroft v. Creasy, 2 East, made in 1801, the question has been settled to this effect in England.
The Supreme Court of New York held likewise in Young v. Covell, 8 Johns. 23.
That court declared it to be well settled that this action could not be sustained, without proving actual fraud in the defendant, or an intention to deceive the plaintiff by false representations. The simple fact of making representations, which turn out not to be true, unconnected with a fraudulent design, is not sufficient.
This decision was made forty years ago, and stands uncontradicted, so far as we know, in the American courts
Taking the foregoing instruction together, we understand it to mean this: That if the jury believed due inquiry as to the credit of West & Daby had not been made by Lord & Jenness, and that they had signed the letter ignorantly, and regardless of the fact, whether the persons recommended were or were not entitled to credit, then the jury should charge the defendants: The real test of conduct, according to the charge, obviously being, whether Lord & Jenness ought to have accorded confidence to the younger Lord's letter, and to its sanction by his wife; and whether this information was of such a character as to justify them in writing the letter to Goddard, without further inquiry.
That this instruction, taken in its proper sense, was evasive of the true rule, and calculated to mislead the jury, is manifest, and therefore the judgment must be reversed, and the cause sent down for another trial.
Order.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Hampshire, and was argued by counsel, on consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court *212 that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby reversed with costs, and that this cause be, and the same is hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court, with directions to award a venire facias de novo.
