Court Opinion

ID: 3867256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 09:01:10.969006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:34.438499
License: Public Domain

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.