Freeman against Baker and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 November 1833 |
| Date | 20 November 1833 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 985
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 2 N. & M. 446; 2 L. J. K. B. 17: at Nisi Prius, 5 Car. & P. 475. Discussed, Taylor v. Bullen, 1850, 5 Ex. 785.
freeman against baker and another. Tuesday, Nov. 20th, 1833. An action of deceit does not lie against a person making an untrue representation to another, on the faith of which the hearer acts, and thereby incurs damage, if the party making such representation did not know it to be untrue. The owners of a ship circulated advertisements of sale, beginning with a description of the ship, which stated her to be copper-fastened; after which was a notice, that the hull, masts, yards, and rigging, were to be taken with all faults. Under this was printed the word " inventory," which was followed by a list of the ship's stores and tackle; and there was then a further announcement, that the vessel and her stores were to be taken with all faults, and without allowance for weight, length, quality, quantity, or any defect whatever. The owners afterwards executed a written contract of sale, not stating the vessel to be copper-fastened, but containing this clause: " On payment of the purchase-money, the said brig, with what belongs to her, shall be delivered according to the inventory which hath been exhibited; but the said inventory shall be made good as to quantity only; and the said brig, together with her stores, shall be taken with all faults, in the condition they (a) To which point Follett cited Kooystra v. Lucas, 5 B. & A. 830. Whalley v. Tompson, 1 B. & P. 371. Harding v. Wilson, 2 B, & C. 96 (per Holroyd J.). 986 " FJREEMAN V. BAKER 5 B. & AD. 798. now lie, without any allowance for weight, length, quality, or any defect whatsoever:" Held, (assuming that the advertisement could, by words of reference, be incorporated with the contract of sale,) that the word " inventory" in the contract, referred only to the list of stores, &c. and not to the prior part of the advertisement: and, therefore, that on the two documents taken together, no warranty appeared that the ship was copper fastened. [S. C. 2 N. & M. 446; 3 L. J, K. B. 17 : at Nisi Prius, 5 Car. & P. 475. Discussed, Taylor v. Bulkn, 1850, 5 Ex. 785.] Case. The first count of the declaration stated, that before and at the time of the committing of the grievance, &c. the defendants were possessed of a [798] certain ship or vessel called the "Leslie Ogilby," which was not copper-fastened, as said defendants before and at the time, &c. well knew; yet defendants, contriving, &c. to deceive and injure plaintiff in this respect, and to induce plaintiff to purchase the said ship at and for a large sum of money, heretofore, &c. falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully represented to plaintiff that the said ship was a copper-fastened ship. The count then stated, that defendants, further contriving, &c. kept the said ship afloat in a certain dock called the West India Dock, so that the said ship could not be inspected or examined by plaintiff, and that defendants used and employed divers other subtle arts and devices for the purpose of preventing an inspection and examination of said ship by plaintiff, and thereby defendants afterwards, to wit, &c. induced plaintiff to purchase the said ship as a copper-fastened ship, with divers stores belonging thereto, from defendants, at and for a large sum of money, to wit, 13001., and falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully sold the said ship as a copper-fastened ship with the stores as aforesaid, to plaintiff, at and for the said sum of 13001., by means whereof the said ship became and was, and still is, of little or no use or value to plaintiff; and so the plaintiff averred, that he was then and there cheated and defrauded by said defendants of a large sum of money, to wit, 13001. The second count was similar, but omitted the mention of any means used to prevent inspection. The third count stated, that plaintiff bargained with defendants, at their instance and" request, to buy of them a certain other ship, with stores, &c. for the sum of 13001.; and defendants, by falsely and fraudulently representing the last-mentioned ship to be copper-fastened, then and [799] there sold the said last mentioned ship, with the stores, &c. to plaintiff, for the sum, &c...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jennings v Broughton
...Greasy (2 East, 92); Parkinson v. Lee (2 East, 314); Legge v. Croker (1 B. & B. 50S); Foster v. Charles (1 Bing. 106); Freeman v. Baker (5 B. & Ad. 797) ; Wilson v. Short (6 Hare, 366); and the following passages from the Digest and Codex :-" Ipse (Labeo) sic definiit dolum malum esse omnem......
-
William Crawshay v William Thompson and Others
...Ames v. Millward, 2 B. Moore, 713 ; Adamson v. Jarvis, 4 Bingh. 66; I/yde v. Barnard, Tyrwh. & G. 250, 1 M. & W. 101; Freeman v. Baker, 5 B. & Ad. 797, 2 Nev. & M. 446; HaslocJc v. Ferguson, 7 A. & E. 86, 2 N. & P. 269; Swann v. Phillipps, 8 A. & E. 457, 3 N. & P. 447. And see ante, vol. ii......
-
Collins and Rigley against Evans and Wheelton
...Oorbett v. Brown (8 Bing. 33), is another instance of the same principle, which agrees perfectly with that upon which Freeinan v. Baker (5 B. & Ad. 797), was decided, where the action was held not to lie, for want of knowledge. The decision in the present case, in the Court below, rests pri......
-
Fuller against Elizabeth Wilson
...105).] The defendant in PoViill v. Walter (3 B. & Ad. 114), made what he himself knew to be a false representation. In Freeman v. Baker (5 B. & Ad. 797), it was held that an action for deceit cannot be maintained against a party making a false representation, if he does not know that it is ......