Wilder v. Beede

Action fob Deceit—Procurement of Note by Fraud—Agreement as to Use of Piano—Sufficiency of Complaint—Rescission.—In an action for deceit, a complaint alleging, in substance, that defendant, through his agent, obtained permission to place a piano of latest pattern in plaintiff’s house for exhibition to intending purchasers of such instrument, with an agreement that plaintiff might have the use of it for a year, with privilege of purchasing the same if desired, and obtained her signature to a note for four hundred dollars, payable in one year, with interest at ten per cent per annum, under a trick and fraudulent representation that she was signing a receipt for the piano containing the terms of the agreement, and that defendant delivered an old, wornout instrument of no value, whereupon plaintiff offered to return the piano and defendant refused to receive it, and negotiated the note to a bank, which had recovered judgment thereon, which plaintiff was compelled to pay, states a sufficient cause of action for the deceitful obtaining of the note for which plaintiff received no consideration and which was used to her damage, and it is not necessary to show a rescission of a sale, which did not in fact exist.

Id.—Fraud of Assumed Agent—Adoption of Acts—Liability of Defend ant.—Where the evidence showed that one assuming to be defendant’s agent obtained plaintiff’s note fraudulently, and that plaintiff was compelled to pay the same, and that defendant, who was a son of the owner of the piano, and had authority from her to sell it for two hundred and twenty-five dollars, before the paper was signed by plaintiff ascertained that a bank would discount plaintiff’s note, and prepared a note payable to himself in the sum of four hundred dollars, which the assumed agent of defendant then fraudulently obtained from plaintiff under the representation that defendant was the owner of the piano, and defendant then immediately discounted it to the bank, and disposed of the proceeds, paying the excess of pr'ce to the assumed agent, the jury were at liberty to infer that the defendant accepted the note as one obtained by his own agent, and if such agent was self-constituted, defendant having accepted the note from him, knowing that it had been executed in advance of the delivery of the piano, and for a sum largely in excess of the value, was put upon inquiry into the acts and representations by which such agent had procured the paper, and, not having made such inquiry, the jury might find that he meant to take upon himself, without further information, the risk of any misconduct by such agent, and to adopt all his acts.

Id.—Agency of Defendant Immaterial—Assumption of Character of Principal.—The fact that defendant was himself the agent of his mother and did not personally profit by the fraud of his assumed agent in obtaining the note, is immaterial, he having fully assumed in the supposed contract evidenced by the note the character of a principal, and allowed his assumed agent and the bank to treat him as such, and intended that plaintiff should regard him in that character.