Case ID: me_4/html/0172-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mellen C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McKenney vs. Dingley.
    
    In order to avoid a sale of goods on the ground of false and fraudulent conduct ire the vendee, in representing himself to be a man of good property and credit when he was not so ; it is competent for the vendor, in addition to the direct proof of the case, to give evidence of similar falsa pretences successfully used to other persons, in the same town, about the same time, to shew a general plan to amass property by fraud.
    This was an action of replevin for a horse, which one Seed purchased of the plaintiff on credit, July 12, 1S24, and which the defendant claimed to have bought fairly of Seed. The plaintiff' sought to avoid the sale and reclaim the horse, on the ground that it was obtained from him by means of false and fraudulent representations made by Seed respecting his own property, credit, and responsibility, and that the defendant was party to the fraud.- At the trial, before the Chief Justice, the plaintiff, having proved the false representations made personally by Seed to himself, proposed, with a view to connect him with Dinghy, to prove that Seed, on the 9th and 10th, and on one or two other days in July, and also on the 19th day of August, had made similar false repre* sentations to other persons, from whom he had succeeded in obtaining goods to the amount of between four and five thousand dollars. This evidence was objected to, but the Chief Justice admitted it, as tending to shew a fraudulent intention to obtain the possession of a great quantity of goods without payment; instructing the jury, first to consider and decide whether the representations made to the plaintiff were false and fraudulent, with intent to gain possession of his horse and not to pay for him ; and then to ascertain whether the false representations made to the others were made for similar purposes; and whether they all were parts of a plan formed by Reed, to defraud the parties of their property. If they should be satisfied of the existence of such fraudulent design and of its execution on the part of Reed, then he instructed them to inquire and decide whether Dingley was acquainted and connected with it; and whether the transfer of the horse from Reed to him by exchange was made to render the original fraud effectual, under the appearance of a fair purchase. If so, then this action was maintainable against Dingley, but if he was innocent of the fraud, and purchased the horse for a valuable consideration, without notice, they ought to find for the defendant.
    The jury found for the plaintiff; and informed the court that independently of the false representations made to others, those made to the plaintiff by Reed were false and fraudulent, and made with the design to cheat him out of his property ; and that Ding-ley was assenting to and connected with the fraud. The verdict was taken subject to the opinion of the court upon the question whether the evidence was properly admitted, and the jury correctly instructed.
    The cause having been submitted without argument, by Fessenden and Deblois for the plaintiff, and Longfellow and Adams for the defendant,
    the opinion of the court was delivered at the following September term in Lincoln, by
   Mellen C. J.

In the case of Seaver v. Dingley lately decided in the county of Kennebec, we have had occasion to examine the principal facts disclosed in the report before us ; and have pronounced our opinion upon the objections made to the decisions and instructions of the Judge in that cause, which are nearly the same as those reserved as the basis of the motion for a new trial of this. Upon the general questions, therefore, which have been argued, as to the admissibility of evidence, we refer to our opinion in Seaver v. Dingley, and the grounds on which we have placed it. In that case we overruled all objections and entered judgment on the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. In the case before us,the facts, in some respects, are much stronger for the plaintiff than they were in that. For in addition to the fact found by the jury, that Reed had formed a plan fraudulently to obtain as many goods as he could in Portland, by purchases of a number of persons; and that the several purchases which he made, including that of the horse, were parts of such plan ; it appears by the special infor-formation to the court, given by the foreman of the jury, that in-dependency of the false representations made to others, they found that the representations made by Reed to the plaintiff, at the time of purchasing the horse in question, were false and fraudulent, and made with the view of obtaining credit, and getting possession of the horse, and never paying for him. This evidence alone is enough to maintain the action, without proof of the false and fraudulent representations made to* others; and therefore, even if the proof which was admitted as to them had been improperly admitted, it is very questionable whether the verdict ought to be disturbed ; but we all think it was properly admitted, and that the instructions of the judge were correct, both as to the alleged'plan to defraud, and the alleged knowledge of it on the part of Dingley, and his connection with it. There must. be Judgment on the verdict.