The Portland daily press., 1876-10-18

OCTOBER CIVIL TERM, 1s76-sYMoNDs, j., PREsID

OCTOBER CIVIL TERM, 1876-sYMoNDs, j., PREsID-
TUEsDAY.-Otis Brown and wife VS.. George E
Davis. Assumpsit to recover damages sustained by
reason of an alleged fraudulent breach of contract
on the part of the defendant. The suit tains two
counts The first sets forth that the defendant in
consideration OF his being employed the agent of
the plaintiffs to secure loan of money from the
Rollinsiord Savings Bank, promised to procure the
loan at the lowest rate be had of the bank; that
he did not in fact act in good faith in procuring the
loan, but the contrary, the defendant, intending
to defraud the plaintiffs, represented to them that
twelve per cent. was the lowest rate at which the
loan could be had; whereas, in fact, the bank was
then ready and willing to loan the money at eight
per cent, whereby the plaintiffs induced to
sign mortgage note for S4i00, receiving in cash
therefor only $4,000.
In the second count plaintiffs claim to recover
thirtyve dollars, which they say defendant received
of their money on a second mortgage of $3.50.
In 1870 plaintiffs, residing at Saccarappa had occa-
sion to raise some money to pay off mortgage
their property, which had matured some time
previous, Mr.. Brown applied to defendant to pro-
cure the money for him. Plaintiff says:-Mr. Davis
said he thought he could procure it of the Rollins
ford Savings Bank, but they would charge me twelve
per cent. objected on the ground that it was too
high for us to pay and suggested to Mr.. Davis that
he write to them and if he could not obtain lower
rates. He said he would but did not think it would
be Of any use. A few days after went in and he
reported that the bank refused to at any lower
rates. but that they had suggested If did not like
the of paying II per cent? they would add four
per cent to the notes for the time they to
which was five years. and call it eight per cent
Being very much pressed for money, consented.
On the Both of August, 1870 my wife and I signed
MIR aapdn mot 10 forG IN of o;o
per cent, receiving therefor $4,000. When the note
was presented to me saw that it ran to Nathan
Hill and not to the bank. In reply to my enquiry
Davis said Hill was an old Quaker, through whom
the bank did its business. Then told Davis we had
not quite money enough and he said he would take
second mortgage for $3.50. He figured his COM
missions at two per cent for five years, asked
him if it customary to pay two per cent for the
full time and he said it was. paid him $72 for
commissions. On the second mortgage for $3.50
received $315.
The mortgage has since been paid. first learned
that the bank loaned the money at eight per cent
within the last year.
Mr.. Davis says Brown had applied to him several
times to raise this money for him, and he had re-
peatedly told him that amount could not be raised
ON mortgage of that property, but some time in
the early part Of the of 1870 he told Brown
he thought he might raise it, but he should have to
pay ten per cent. for the money and give his Davis
personal guaranty that the mortgage would be paid,
and that the property would deprecate, and for
that guaranty he should charge him two per cent.
year, to all of which Brown assented. Mr.. Davis
denied that the money was hired of the Savings
Bank. 1t was hired of Joshua Converse, trustee of
the Rollnsford Savings Bank, to whom Mr.. Davis
gave the guaranty, which was introduced in evil
dence. He says the mortgage was made running to
Nathan Hill by Mr.. Converse's direction. Mr.. Davis
denied that he received directly indirectly any
thing than the four hundred dollars for guar
anteeing the payment of the loan at maturity.
1t appears that Nathan Hill held the mortgage
short time, when he assigned it to the Rolinsford
Savings Bank, endorsing the note without recourse.
Mr. Converse who appears in the case by deposition,
states that he took the mortgage for Mr.. Vance of
Florida; that when he negotiated for it, it was
already made running to Nathan Hill; that Vance
failed to procure the money, and he then had Hill
assign it to the bank. The records of the bank show
that Converse presided at the meeting of the trus
tees when the loan and security were approved.
AS to the conversations detailed by Brown at the
time OF the execution of the papers, Mr. Davis denies
the greater part of them.
Verdict for plaintiffs for $1,13s12.
Reed for plaintiffs.
Bonney-Webb for defendant.
John Weeks VS.. Patrick Feeney. Assumpsit to
recover for labor and materials. Evidence closed.
Cartoons for plant lift.
Haskell for defendant.