LEGAL DOCUMENT

Case: George W. Butterfield vs. Andrew J. Barber
Citation: 20 R.I. 99
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1897-05-15
Docket Number: 
Pages: 99–99
Volume: 20
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports

Parties: George W. Butterfield vs. Andrew J. Barber.

George W. Butterfield vs. Andrew J. Barber.
PROVIDENCE
MAY 15, 1897.
Present : Matteson, O. J., Stiness and Tillinghast, JJ.
Representations made by A. to procure an extension of time for the payment of his indebtedness to B. afford no ground' for “an action for deceit by C., who subsequently purchased the claim from B. in the form of a note; such representations not having been made with the intention of inducing C.’s action, the latter had no right to rely thereon.
Oase for deceitful representations by a debtor to Ms creditor, the' plaintiff having subsequently purchased the claim from the latter in the form of a promissory note.
Heard on defendant’s petition for new trial.
Patrick H. Mulholland, for plaintiff.
George A. Littlefield, for defendant.

Per Curiam.
Assuming that the representations testified to by the plaintiff were made by the defendant, the testimony shows that they were made for the purpose of being communicated to Murphy, to procure an extension of time for the payment of his claim against the defendant. At the time they were made the defendant had no expectation that the note, which was subsequently made, was to be taken by the plaintiff, who, in the' meantime, had purchased the claim from Murphy. We do not think that in these circumstances the plaintiff had the right to rely on the representations, if they were made, because they were not made with the intention of inducing his action, and consequently that he has no ground to maintain an action for deceit.
Case remitted to the Common Pleas Division, with direction to enter judgment for the defendant for costs.