Thompson v. Barry

12 Citing cases

  1. White Tower Management Corp. v. Taglino

    302 Mass. 453 (Mass. 1939)   Cited 17 times
    In White Tower Management Corporation v. Taglino, 302 Mass. 453, 19 N.E.2d 700, specific performance of an agreement to convey land was denied to the purchaser because his identity was falsely represented by his agent in the negotiations which preceded the agreement.

    The representation by Taylor was material. Thompson v. Barry, 184 Mass. 429, 432. Stewart v. Joyce, 201 Mass. 301, 309.

  2. WALKER v. GALT

    171 F.2d 613 (5th Cir. 1949)   Cited 11 times

    In other words, fraud may be predicated upon misrepresentations as to the identity of the purchaser or as to the person for whom the ostensible purchaser acts, where the vendor would not have entered into the contract had he known the true identity of the purchaser." 55 Am.Jur., Vendor and Purchaser, Sec. 96. Thompson v. Barry, 184 Mass. 429, 68 N.E. 674. The materiality as an element of fraud, of deceit as to the identity of one offering to contract, as a ground for equitable relief, was sustained in Florida in the recent case of Bell v. Smith, Fla., 32 So.2d 829, 175 A.L.R. 695, though the remedy sought was not cancellation but the declaration of a constructive trust. 2.

  3. Barnes v. Eastern Western Lbr. Co.

    205 Or. 553 (Or. 1955)   Cited 47 times
    In Barnes, the Oregon Supreme Court quoted 58 C.J.S. Money Received § 23, p. 929, which states: "Where money is received on the joint account of several defendants they are jointly liable."

    The buyer was engaged in the latter business, but his agent told the seller that the purchasers were two persons who desired to obtain the land for residential use. Thompson v. Barry, 184 Mass. 429, 68 N.E. 674, rescinded a deed because the purchaser was represented in the negotiations which led to its execution as a person who would use the property for residence purposes, whereas it really was a church corporation which intended to construct a church upon the land. The identity of the purchaser was deemed material because it was indicative of the use to be made of the granted land which in turn would probably affect adversely the value of adjacent land which the grantor retained.

  4. North Reading v. Drinkwater

    309 Mass. 200 (Mass. 1941)   Cited 15 times

    Ed.) c. 214, § 31. There was no final decree, no ruling as to the form the decree should take, and no statement of any terms of reservation. See Thompson v. Barry, 184 Mass. 429, 431; Hildreth v. Thibodeau, 186 Mass. 83, 85; Daly v. Foss, 209 Mass. 470, 473-474. The question is presented whether a by-law of the plaintiff town is valid.

  5. Cronan v. Cronan

    286 Mass. 497 (Mass. 1934)   Cited 11 times

    Only the questions of law apparent upon the record are presented for consideration. G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 215, § 13. Thompson v. Barry, 184 Mass. 429, 431. The trustees have a right to request instructions concerning their immediate and present duties, but not as to those which may arise in the future.

  6. Nichols v. Kimball

    272 Mass. 325 (Mass. 1930)   Cited 3 times

    Even if Kimball did not know of these false statements, they were made by his agent to procure the payment of the money and the plaintiffs can rescind. Thompson v. Barry, 184 Mass. 429. In the consideration of the Eastham matter the master found, as an inference of fact from the other facts found, that there was no relation of principal and agent between Kimball and Fitts in this transaction.

  7. Webb v. Johnston

    140 N.E. 814 (Mass. 1923)   Cited 6 times

    Every element of actionable deceit by one occupying a fiduciary relation is present in the findings of the master. Kilgore v. Bruce, 166 Mass. 136. Thompson v. Barry, 184 Mass. 429. Lynch v. Palmer, 237 Mass. 150. Jeselsohn v. Park Trust Co. 241 Mass. 388. It has not been argued that there was error in the measure of damages assessed against Keenan. Thomson v. Pentecost, 210 Mass. 223, and cases there reviewed. Vouros v. Pierce, 226 Mass. 175. Lefevre v. Chamberlain, 228 Mass. 294.

  8. Brager v. Friedenwald

    128 Md. 8 (Md. 1916)   Cited 28 times

    By the decision in each of these cases the conveyance under inquiry was held to have been procured by fraud and was accordingly vacated. In Thompson v. Barry, 184 Mass. 429, and Williams v. Kerr, 152 Pa. St. 560, similar conclusions were reached upon somewhat analagous facts. "The representations here alleged to have been made were undoubtedly material to the transaction, and as they are conceded by the demurrer to have been false and deceptive and to have induced the plaintiff to make the conveyance with resulting injury to her interests, a sufficient case is shown for equitable rescission on the ground of fraud and deceit."

  9. Coan v. Consolidated Gas Electric Light & Power Co.

    95 A. 151 (Md. 1915)   Cited 10 times
    In Coan v. Consolidated Gas Electric Light and Power Company, 126 Md. 506, the question was as to the effect of false and deceptive representations of an agent of the appellee as to his intentions in buying the land.

    By the decision in each of these cases the conveyance under inquiry was held to have been procured by fraud and was accordingly vacated. In Thompson v. Barry, 184 Mass. 429, and Williams v. Kerr, 152 Pa. St. 560, similar conclusions were reached upon somewhat analogous facts. The representations here alleged to have been made were undoubtedly material to the transaction, and as they are conceded by the demurrer to have been false and deceptive and to have induced the plaintiff to make the conveyance with resulting injury to her interests, a sufficient case is shown for equitable rescisison on the ground of fraud and deceit.

  10. Isenbeck v. Burroughs

    105 N.E. 595 (Mass. 1914)   Cited 20 times
    In Isenbeck v. Burroughs, 217 Mass. 537, the court approved the following statement of the principle made in Lovett v. Sullivan, 189 Mass. at 536: "A person who has derived a benefit through the fraud of his agent can not keep the fruits of the bargain, thus ratifying the fraud, without being liable in an action for deceit."

    Indeed, if, as could be found, Randall was acting for the defendants in negotiating with the plaintiff, and if the defendants took the benefit of false and fraudulent representations made by Randall to the plaintiff to induce him to pay the higher price, it could be found that the defendants were responsible for these representations as if made by themselves. Jewett v. Carter, 132 Mass. 335. Haskell v. Starbird, 152 Mass. 117. Thompson v. Barry, 184 Mass. 429, 433. Leslie v. Jaquith, 201 Mass. 242. As was said by this court in Lovett, Hart Phipps Co. v. Sullivan, 189 Mass. 535, 536, 537, "A person who has derived a benefit through the fraud of his agent cannot keep the fruits of the bargain, thus ratifying the fraud, without being liable in an action for deceit." We do not care to recapitulate the testimony.