Brooks v. Sawyer

76 N.E. 953, 191 Mass. 151, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1242
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 5, 1906·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Lathrop, J.

We are of opinion in this case that the demurrer to the declaration was rightly sustained, and judgment rightly ordered for the defendant. While the action is called one of tort, yet the action is clearly for the breach of a contract, and the fraud alleged is directly connected with the contract. The case is governed by Slayton v. Barry, 175 Mass. 513, where the question is fully considered, and the rule laid down by Chancellor Kent followed. “ The fraudulent act, to charge him, [the infant] must be wholly tortious; and a matter arising ex contractu, though infected with fraud, cannot be changed into a tort in order to charge the infant in trover, or case, by a change in the form of the action.” 2 Kent Com. 241.

The case of Drude v. Curtis, 183 Mass. 317, disposes of the argument that the plaintiff may recover as damages the sum paid by him for the option. It also disposes of the case of Walker v. Davis, 1 Gray, 506, relied upon by the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brooks v. Sawyer, 76 N.E. 953, 191 Mass. 151, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1242 (Mass. 1906).

76 N.E. 953 (Brooks v. Sawyer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frye v. Yasi
101 N.E.2d 128 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
Knudson v. General Motorcycle Sales Co.
230 Mass. 54 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)