The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1910-10-27
LAW COURT RESCRIPT.
Exceptions OF Defendant Overruled In
PIttsiield Farm Case.

| Inc law court wednesday handed
down a rescript in the Somerset coun-
ty case of Arthur P. Adams VS.. Will
liam H. Burton. overruling the excep-
tons. and motion of the defendant
The rescript, which was drawn by
Justice Peabody is as follows:
This is an action on the case
brought to recover damages for de-
ceit in the sale of farm in Pittsfield,
Me. The verdict was in favor of the
plaintiff for $3.50.
The case is before the court on the
defendants general motion for new
trial and exceptions to the ruling of
the justice in refusing to give two
requested instructions, namely "A
by Mr. Burton that in the summer OF
1907 he cut 20 tons OF hay is only an
estimate or expression of opinion. as
the hay was then in the barn and the
amount could have been as readily
calculated by the plaintiff as by Mr.
Burton, and, therefore, not a material
representation and The statement
m. de by Mr. Burton as to the length
and width of the barn inasmuch as 1t
was before the plaintiff and could
have been easily measured by him, is
not material representation"
Part OF the farm was owned and
conveyed by the defendant, and the
other part WIS owned and conveyed
by his wife, Lucy Burton to the plain
tiff, but all the alleged representa-
tons having been made by the defen-
dant the two cases are, by agreement,
tried as one and as though he con-
veyed the whole.
The land described in the writ CON
sisted of four different pieces, name
ly, the Burton home farm, on which
were the buildings, being lot No. a. in
the fifth range; east of this the Ma
than Burton lumber lot, being the
south half of lot No. in the fifth
range and the north half of lot No. 3
in the fourth range; further east a
parcel of land consisting of all of the
lot No. in the fifth range, part of
lot No. 4 in the fourth range; and
next easterly a parcel of II acres in
the filth range.
The Misrepresentation claimed are
to the location of the northerly and
southerly lines of the Nathan Burton
lumber lot; the southerly line of the
Lucy Burton lot No 4; also in regard
to the size of the barn and the pro-
ductiveness of the farm.
The refusal to give the requested
instructions was proper, because the
legal propositions involved in them
we're not correct in their entirety.
Giving the plaintiff the benefit of
the most favorable inference which
may be drawn from the evidence, the
liability of the defendant must be
limited to the representations made
by him in regard to the productive
ness of the farm, the other alleged
being either not sufficiently proved
or, as proved, not actionable repre-
sentation. Here the testimony is in
direct conflict. The statements
claimed by the plaintiff to have been
made by the defendant relative to the
quality of hay cut on the farm were
statements of fact, the substantial
correctness of which the defendant
knew or might properly be supposed
to know. They were material repre-
sensations, not merely dealers talk
and the jury was justified in finding
from the evidence that they were
made by the defendant were known
by him to be untrue, that the plaintiff
relied upon them, was deceived, and
by the deceit, induced to purchase the
farm, and that the defendant was,
therefore, liable. The measure of
damages is the difference between the
actual value of the farm and the value
based on the representations of the
defendant. and, as found by the jury,
they are not excessive.
Exceptions oyerruled. Motion over
ruled.