Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-02-02
Local Matters.
LAW COURT DECISIONS.
Exceptions Overruled and Judgement for Plain
tiff in Henry VS.. Dennis.

The law court have just sent down
rcSCrpt in two Kennebec county cases
that have been before the courts for a
long time. The actions We're brought
in the superior court by VIM. 5. Henry,
Jr., a wool dealer in Boston, against
David Dennis of Gardiner, president OF
the Gardiner WOODEN Co, to recover
damages for false representations IN
regard to the financial condition of the
company, Leslie c. Cornish, Esq, being
counsel for plaintiff and Hon., "A. NJ.
Spear for defendant. At the first trial
a verdict was rendered for the defend
ant The plaintiff carried the case to
the law court where the Verdict.Mas set
aside and a new trial granted. At the
second trial a verdict was given for
the plaintiff for the full amount
claimed, aggregating $205S.31, and the
defendant carried the case TO the law
court on exceptions. The decision just
received overrules the exceptions and
orders Judgment for the plaintiff on
the verdict.
The rescript is as follows:
VIM. S. Henry. Jr., VS.. David Dennis;
VIM. S. Henry. Jr.. ct al, VS.. Same.
One who makes u misrepresentation
must. to render himself liable therefor,
have made it with the intention that 1t
should have been acted upon by the
person to whom it is made or by one TO
whom he intended it should be COM
municated.
a representation made to one per-
son with the intention that it shall
reach the ears of another and be acted
upon by him. and which does reach
him. and is acted upon by him to his
injury, gives the person so acting upon
it the same right to redress as. if it had
been made to him directly.
Henry. the plaintiff in one of these
suits. and one of the two plaintiffs in
the other suit prior to the formation of
the copartnership with the other plain
tiff in the second suit. had been indi-
vidually engaged in the wool business
under the name of w. 5. Henry, Jr., &
co. After the formation of the CO.
partnership, under the name of Henry
& Parsons, to carry on me same bust
ness. he continued his individual bust
ness to the extent of selling from time
to time wool which he had on hand at
the time of the formation of the copart-
nership. and which was not turned over
to the latter.
After the formation of the copartner-
ship between the plaintiffs in the sec
ond suit. and while the plaintiff Henry
was still selling on his own account
this wool he wrote in the name of w.
5. Henry. Jr., x Co, to the Gardiner
Wooden 90. making inquiries as to the
financial condition of that company.
The defendant to whom this letter was
turned over for the purpose, made re
ply by letter directed to w 5. Henry
& Co. and therein made, as has been
found by jury, certain false representa-
tions as to the financial condition of
the Wooden Co, which mtSrepresenta-
tons were acted upon by Henry, both
individually and as a member of the
firm of Henry & Parsons, by selling and
shipping wool to the company upon
credit, both upon his own account ana
upon that of the firm of Henry n Par
sons The defendant did not know Of
the existence OF The firm Of Henry &
Parsons. nor did he know that Henry
was doing business alone under the
firm name of w. s. Henry, Jr.. & Go.
Held: That the defendant must have
contemplated that the contents of his
letter would either be communicated u
other members of any firm OF when
Henry was partner. in that business.
and would be acted upon by the firm.
or that Henry. acting for Il firm would
be induced by his letter to give credit
to the Wooden Co; and that the de-
PENDANT is liable to the firm. the mem
bers Of which are the plaintiffs IN one
suit. for such injury as it suffered in
consequence Of the misrepresentation
contained in his letter, whereby the
firm was induced to make sales of its
goods to the Wooden co. upon credit.
Rescript by Wiswell, c. j.