Butterfield v. Barber

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Butterfield v. Barber

37 A. 532, 20 R.I. 99, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 45

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMay 15, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 37 A. 532 (Butterfield v. Barber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Butterfield v. Barber, 37 A. 532, 20 R.I. 99, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 45 (R.I. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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.

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

Per Curiam.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A. 532, 20 R.I. 99, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butterfield-v-barber-ri-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack