Court Opinion

ID: 6412984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 11:54:04.708024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:26.009664
License: Public Domain

Bigelow, C. J.
The alleged false statements concerning the productiveness of the land and its capacity to furnish support for cattle constituted no defence to the notes. They fall within that class of affirmations, which, although known by the party making them to be false, do not as between vendor and vendee afford any ground for a claim of damages either in an action on *214the case for deceit, or by way of recoupment in a suit to recover the purchase money. They come within the principle embodied in the maxim of the civil law, simplex commendatio non obliged. Assertions concerning the value of property which is the subject of a contract of sale, or in regard to its qualities and characteristics, are the usual and ordinary means adopted by sellers to obtain a high price, and are always understood as affording to buyers no ground for omitting to make inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining the real condition of the property. Affirmations concerning the value of land, or its adaptation to a particular mode of culture, or the capacity of the soil to produce crops or support cattle, are, after all, only expressions of opinion or estimates founded on judgment, about which honest men might well differ materially. Although they might turn out to be erroneous or false, they furnish no evidence of any fraudulent intent. They relate to matters which are not peculiarly within the knowledge of the vendor, and do not involve any inquiry into facts which third persons might be unwilling to disclose. They are, strictly speaking, gratis dicta. The vendee cannot safely place any confidence in them; and if he does, he cannot make use of his own want of vigilance and care in omitting to ascertain whether they were true or false as the basis of his claim for damages in reduction of the amount which he agreed to pay for the property.
The representations concerning the quantity of land which formed the subject of the contract come within the same principle. The vendors pointed out to the vendees the true boundaries of the land which they sold. This fact is established by the verdict of the jury under the instructions which were given at the trial. The defendants had therefore the means of ascertaining the precise quantity of land included within the boundaries. They omitted to measure it, or to cause it to be surveyed. By the use of ordinary vigilance and attention, they might have ascertained that the statement concerning the number of acres, on which they placed reliance, was false. They cannot now seek a remedy for placing confidence in affirmations which, at the time they were made, they had the means and opportunity *215to verify or disprove. Sugd. on Vend. 6, 7. Scott v. Hanson, 1 Sim. 13. Medbury v. Watson, 6 Met. 246. Brown v. Castles, 11 Cush. 348.
The declaration in the former suit was rightly admitted. It was in the nature of an admission by the defendants of the nature and amount of damages which they claimed of the present plaintiffs in reduction of the amount due on the notes. The declaration was not a mere technical statement of a cause of action by an attorney, but it contained specific averments of the representations which the defendants alleged to be false, and which must have been derived from them. It was therefore the statement of their agent, while employed and acting within the scope of his agency. Currier v. Silloway, 1 Allen, 19.

Exceptions overruled.