148 F. 674 | 3rd Cir. | 1906
This is an action for deceit. The plaintiff, the 'Pittsburgh Tife & Trust Company, avers that on August 3, 1903, it entered into a contract with the defendant, the Northern Central Tife Insurance Company of Ohio, in which the plaintiff agreed
The leading English case concerning the doctrine underlying an action for deceit is Pasley v. Freeman, 3 T. R. 51, decided in 1789. From this case, and the case of Derry v. Peek, L. R. 14 App. Cas. 337, decided by the House of Lords in 1889, the following rule is extracted and stated in 12 English Ruling Cases, at page 235 :
“AYlien a person, with a view to influence the conduct of another, willfully leads him into a false belief, and this oilier person acts accordingly to his lnirt, the act is said to have been induced by fraud; and the former is liable to the latter in damages in an action for deceit. To constitute the fraud, it is not essential that the defendant was, or expected to be, benefited by the deceit; but it is essential that he should have been guilty of willful falsehood (or at least reckless disregard of truth) in the representations made.”
This, by the decided weight of authority, sets forth the American doctrine on the same subject. To sustain an action for deceit, there must be fraud in the defendant, intention to deceive the plaintiff, and damage to the plaintiff. A false statement made through carelessness and without reasonable ground for believing it to be true may be evidence of fraud, but it does not necessarily amount to fraud. If made in the honest belief that it is true, it is not fraudulent, and does not support an action for deceit. Lord v. Goddard, 13 How. 198, 211, 14 L. Ed. 111; Ming v. Woolfalk, 116 U. S. 599, 6 Sup. Ct. 489, 29 L. Ed. 740; Marshall v. Hubbard, 117 U. S. 415, 6 Sup. Ct. 806, 29 L. Ed. 919; Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Barnes, 64 Fed. 80, 12 C. C. A. 48; Kimber v. Young, 137 Fed. 744, 70 C. C. A. 178.
This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the other questions raised by the assignments of error and discussed by counsel, namely, whether the plaintiff is estopped by having undertaken to make for itself an investigation of the defendant’s condition, or whether the court below was right in the views expressed on the subject of loss or damage to the defendant. On neither of these questions do we express any opinion.
The judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed, with costs.