Wright v. Roach (Me. 1870). · Go Syfert
Wright v. Roach (Me. 1870). Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Noveletsky v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (med, 2014-09-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Noveletsky v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
D. Me. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Wildes v. Pens Unlimited, Co., 389 A.2d 837, 841 (Me.1978); see also Wright v. Roach, 57 Me. 600, 601 (1870) (correct measure of damages the difference between the value of a farm as represented and its actual value as conveyed, not the difference between the actual value of the farm and the price paid for it).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Margaret Wright and another
v.
Edward Roach
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Jul 1, 1870.
Bion Bradbury and J. O’Bonnell, for the defendant,, J. L. F. Fessenden and N. Webb, for the plaintiffs,
Appleton, Cutting, Daneorth, Kent, Tapley, Walton.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
Daneorth., J.

No question is raised by tbe exceptions but that in relation to damages. The jury were instructed that the damages w'ould be the difference between the actual value of the farm conveyed and the price paid for it.

This is not the measure adopted by the later and better authorities. The true rule, as now settled, is the difference between tbe value of the farm as represented, and the actual value as it was when conveyed. In other words, how much more would the farm have been worth if the several representations made by the defendant, which were proved to be at once false, fraudulent, and material, bad been true. Sedgwick on Dam. (5th ed.) 333, 655, and 658. Stiles v. White, 11 Met. 356.

To such sum may be added as damages a sum equivalent to interest from the time when the conveyance was made. Moulton v, Senter, 39 Maine, 287. Brannin v. Johnson, 19 Maine, 362.

Exceptions sustained.

Appleton, C. J.; Cutting, Kent, Walton, and Tapley, JJ., concurred.