Summary
In Ashley et al. v. Dixon, 48 N.Y. 430, it was held that if A. is under a contract to convey his land to B., and C. persuades him not to do so, no action lies by B. against C. So a witness is not liable for evidence given by him in a suit, although false, by which another is injured.
Summary of this case from Insurance Co. v. BrameOpinion
Argued January 2, 1872
Decided May term, 1872
M. Fairchild for the appellant.
James Gibson for the respondents.
If this be treated as an action to recover the purchase price of the real estate which McEachron contracted to sell to the defendant, or as an action to recover the liquidated damages mentioned in the contract, the action must fail, for the reason that McEachron did not perform, and was not able to perform, on his part.
If the action be treated, as it was on the trial, as one to recover damages for a conspiracy between the defendant and Patrick to defraud McEachron out of his contract with Patrick, and to prevent the performance of his contract with the defendant, then the action must fail, because there was not sufficient proof of such a conspiracy, and the motion to nonsuit the plaintiffs should have been granted. There was no evidence which would warrant the jury to find that Patrick absented himself from home, or refused to perform his contract with McEachron, at the instigation of the defendant.
But even if defendant had induced Patrick not to perform his contract, that alone would not make him liable to the plaintiffs for damages. He could advise and persuade Patrick not to convey the land, under his contract with McEachron, and could, by offering more, induce him to convey to himself, without incurring any liability to McEachron, so long as he was guilty of no fraud or misrepresentation affecting McEachron. If A. has agreed to sell property to B., C. may at any time before the title has passed induce A. not to let B. have the property, and to sell it to himself, provided he be guilty of no fraud or misrepresentation, without incurring any liability to B.; A. alone, in such case, must respond to B. for the breach of his contract, and B. has no claim upon or relations with C. While, by the moral law, C. is under obligation to abstain from any interference with the contract between A. and B., yet it is one of those imperfect obligations which the law, as administered in our courts, does not undertake to enforce. But if C. makes use of any fraudulent misrepresentations, as to B., to induce A. to violate his contract with him, then there is a fraud, accompanied with damages, which gives B. a cause of action against C.; as if C. fraudulently represents to A. that B. had failed or absconded, or had declared his intention not to sell to B., and thus induces A. to sell to another.
Here there is no proof of any fraudulent representations made by defendant to induce Patrick to violate his contract with the plaintiffs.
Hence, I can conceive of no theory, upon the facts as they appear before us, upon which this action can be maintained.
The judgment must be reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.