Newton v. Middleton

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Newton v. Middleton

127 A. 580, 3 N.J. Misc. 157, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 305

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedFebruary 9, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A. 580 (Newton v. Middleton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Newton v. Middleton, 127 A. 580, 3 N.J. Misc. 157, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 305 (N.J. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

This action was. tried in the District Court of Monmouth county, the jury returning- a verdict of $353. for the plaintiff. The plaintiff purchased from the defendant a lot and dwelling by contract and deed. After title passed-the plaintiff brought this action alleging fraudulent misrepresentations concerning the water supply, and claiming as damages the cost of a new well which he was obliged to construct.

The- main contention is that the parol evidence rule was violated. Evidence was admitted of oral representations made by the defendant to the plaintiff, and to plaintiff’s agent before the contract was signed, as. well as conversations with the defendant after the contract was signed and the deed delivered. The rule is well settled, that “the execution of the deed cannot affect the liability of. the vendor for his fraud on any theory that the previous representations are merged in the deed, nor prevent proof of the misrepresentations bjr oral or extrinsic evidence.” 27 R. C. L. 366, § 66, and cases cited. The evidence of false representations, after the signing of the contract, ivas relevant, as rendering more probable the testimony as to similar representations made prior to the execution of the instrument. .

In an analogous case the Court of Errors and Appeals held it reversible error to refuse to admit similar evidence of conversations, both before- and after the execution of the contract. Batura v. McBride, 77 N. J. L. 779.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

Pee Curiam.

This action was. tried in the District Court of Monmouth county, the jury returning- a verdict of $353. for the plaintiff. The plaintiff purchased from the defendant a lot and dwelling by contract and deed. After title passed-the plaintiff brought this action alleging fraudulent misrepresentations concerning the water supply, and claiming as damages the cost of a new well which he was obliged to construct.

The- main contention is that the parol evidence rule was violated. Evidence was admitted of oral representations made by the defendant to the plaintiff, and to plaintiff’s agent before the contract was signed, as. well as conversations with the defendant after the contract was signed and the deed delivered. The rule is well settled, that “the execution of the deed cannot affect the liability of. the vendor for his fraud on any theory that the previous representations are merged in the deed, nor prevent proof of the misrepresentations bjr oral or extrinsic evidence.” 27 R. C. L. 366, § 66, and cases cited. The evidence of false representations, after the signing of the contract, ivas relevant, as rendering more probable the testimony as to similar representations made prior to the execution of the instrument. .

In an analogous case the Court of Errors and Appeals held it reversible error to refuse to admit similar evidence of conversations, both before- and after the execution of the contract. Batura v. McBride, 77 N. J. L. 779.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A. 580, 3 N.J. Misc. 157, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newton-v-middleton-nj-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack