Held. • Question was whether Bank had duty to disclose presence of termites--although there was no disclosure otherwise. This website requires JavaScript. Fraud. The trial court held for the Bank, and Swinton appealed. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. Swinton (Plaintiff) purchased a home from Whitinsville Savings Bank (Defendant). Plaintiff alleged that Defendant knew the home was infested with termites at the time of sale, and that Defendant had concealed this condition from Plaintiff. For example, type "Jane Smith" and then press the RETURN key. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, Intentionally Inflicted Harm: The Prima Facie Case And Defenses, Strict Liability And Negligence: Historic And Analytic Foundations, Multiple Defendants: Joint, Several, And Vicarious Liability, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, Vulcan Metals Co. v. Simmons Manufacturing Co, Laborers Local 17 Health and Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc, Griffith v. Byers Constr. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank | 311 Mass 677 | June 22, 1942 Print Bookmark Case Font Settings Clone and Annotate. Your Name: For example, type "312312..." and then press the RETURN key. Swinton sued Whitinsville for falsely and fraudulently concealing the condition of the house at the time of the sale. Whitinsville estas okulfrapa kvazaŭ ĝi estus literumitaj "Blanka-ins-ville". Whitinsville, "The Shop" Location in Worcester County and the state of Massachusetts. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case No contracts or commitments. Jud. Swinton v. Whitinsville Sav. You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. • Question was whether Bank had duty to disclose presence of termites--although there was no disclosure otherwise. The procedural disposition (e.g. You also agree to abide by our. SWINTON v. WHITINSVILLE SAVINGS BANK. Buyer beware. Pleading, Civil, Declaration. 2.0.14.2 Notes - Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank. 677 NEIL W. SWINTON vs. WHITINSVILLE SAVINGS BANK. 677, finds that as long as it expresses all known material defects and does not prevent the potential buyer from carrying out his own inspection, the seller is not responsible for the defects found after the purchase of the house. Defendant wins in lower court and plaintiff appeals to Massachusetts Supreme Court. Bank Case Brief - Rule of Law: A selling party is not liable for failing to disclose defects. Bank 1942 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court • Bank sold Swintons house that was infested with termites without revealing the defect. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. Read more about Quimbee. swinton v. whitinsville savings bank Sup. Co. of Kansas, Inc, International Products Co. v. Erie R.R. • Question was whether Bank had duty to disclose presence of termites--although there was no disclosure otherwise. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank Rule of Law: A defendant who does not have a duty to disclose known facts to a plaintiff will not be liable for fraud based on his mere concealment of those facts from the plaintiff. Swinton v. Whitinsville Sav. Plaintiff sued Defendant for. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. 965, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that allegations of non-disclosure by a vendor dealing at arms' length with a purchaser of the fact that the house there to be sold was infested with termites failed to state a cause of action. Jud. Swinton’s complaint did not provide sufficient facts to show that Whitinsville Savings Bank knowingly made false statements or misrepresentations. Whitinsville estas neagnoskita vilaĝo ene de la urbo Northbridge en Worcester County, Masaĉuseco, Usono. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. swinton v. whitinsville savings bank Sup. Derry v. Peek Case Brief - Rule of Law: Misrepresentation, alone, is not sufficient to prove deceit. Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? Nature of the Case: Fraudulent concealment. Swinton could not observe the infestation when he purchased the home, but Whitinsville was aware of the infestation and failed to inform Swinton of the house’s condition. The case represents a striking example of the caveat emptor principle: let the purchaser take care of his own interest. What rule did Swinton v. Whitinsville give us? Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. Swinton (plaintiff) purchased a house from Whitinsville Savings Bank (Whitinsville) (defendant) where he lived with his family. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank Supreme Court of Massachusetts, 1942 42 N.E.2d 808. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year), Brief Fact Summary. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank Facts: defendant sold house to plaintiff and family and house is infested with termites. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. Defendant wins in lower court and plaintiff appeals to Massachusetts Supreme Court. If not, you may need to refresh the page. Facts. Listen to the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank Procedural History: Plaintiff claims that a contract should be voided for concealment by defendant in a contract for buying a house from defendant. opinion of the court stated: "Of such universal acceptance is the doctrine of caveat emptor in this country, that the courts of all the States in the Union where the com-mon law prevails, with one exception (South Carolina) sanction it." Plaintiff received a prospectus regarding the Almost two years later, Swinton discovered that the house was infested with termites and had been at the time of the sale. Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. The case Ajalat v. Whitinsville is an unincorporated village within the town of Northbridge in Worcester County, Massachusetts, United States.Whitinsville is a census-designated place (CDP) and its population was 6,704 at the 2010 census.Whitinsville is pronounced as if it were spelled "White-ins-ville". What rule did Griffith v. Byers give us? It is a post office jurisdiction, with a zip code of 01588. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings, 1942: Swinton purchased a dwelling house from Whitinsville Bank which was infested with termites. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank and Griffith v. Byers Construction Company. sign out sign in. neil w. swinton vs. whitinsville savings bank. No contracts or commitments. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Cancel anytime. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. In the case of Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 311 Mass. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank Supreme Court of Massachusetts, 1942 42 N.E.2d 808. Facts. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of There is not liability for bare nondisclosure. The first case, Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 311 Mass. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. SWINTON v. WHITINSVILLE SAVINGS BANK. Similarly it would see, that every buyer would be liable who fails to disclose any non-apparent virtue know to him in the subject of the purchase which materially enhances its value and of which the seller is ignorant. Then click here. A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section; A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Swinton’s complaint alleged that he did not know of the termite infestation when he purchased the house, he could not observe the condition when he inspected the house, and that Whitinsville Savings Bank knew of the infestation and did not inform him. A seller is not required to disclose latent defects. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] You're using an unsupported browser. Fraud. Whitinsville Bank through its salesman knew of the termites and did not disclose this information to Swinton nor were they asked for any such information by Swinton. The Whitinsville Savings Bank was involved in a precedent-setting case in the U.S., involving tort and contract law, known as "Swinton vs. Whitinsville Savings Bank (1942)". videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. 01/21/2015 at 01:37 by RobaHamam; Current Annotated Text … Defendant did nothing to purposefully hide the condition from Plaintiff. Issue. Almost two years later, Swinton discovered that the house was infested with termites and had been at the time of the sale. The seller cannot purposefully hide a latent defect. 677, establishes that as long as the seller expresses all known material defects and does not deceive or prevent the prospective buyer from performing their own inspection, they are not liable for any defects found after the purchase of the home. No. The case of Ajalat v. Cohan, 1998 Mass. This principle found its most powerful expression in nineteenth century sales law. QUA, J. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank Contracts Fraudulent concealment Relief Sought: Damages and cost of repairs Facts Whitinsville Savings Bank (D) sold a house to Swinton (P, appellant) in September 1938. Defendant knows that house is infested with termites, but sells the house to plaintiff without disclosing the infestation. Davis delivering the. It was founded by the Whitin family, after whom it is also named. Whitinsville is an unincorporated village and census-designated place (CDP) on the Mumford River, a tributary of the Blackstone River, in the town of Northbridge in Worcester County, Massachusetts, United States.The population was 6,704 at the 2010 census.Whitinsville is pronounced as if it were spelled "White-ins-ville." * If Defendant is liable on this declaration then every seller is liable who fails to disclose any non-apparent defect know to him in the subject of the sale which materially reduces its value and which the buyer fails to discover. Whitinsville is pronounced as if it were spelled "White-ins-ville". Because no false statements were made and no fiduciary relationship existed, Plaintiff should bear the loss. This Div. Co, Credit Alliance Corporation v. Arthur Andersen & Co, Citizens State Bank v. Timm, Schmidt & Co. Swinton alleged that the defendant fraudulently concealed the termite infestation. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. It was founded by the Whitin family, after whom it is also named. ). Synopsis of Rule of Law. Whitinsville Savings Bank (D) sold a house to Swinton (P, appellant) in September 1938. Summary of Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 42 N.E.2d 808 (1942). Application: Ever seller is liable who fails to disclose non-apparent defect known to him, but law cannot provide special rules for termites and cannot provide special rules for termites You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. A seller is not required to disclose latent defects, but the seller cannot purposely hide a latent defect. Thus, in Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 311 Mass. The first case, Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 311 Mass. Two years later a termite infestation forced Swinton to make costly repairs to prevent further damage to the house. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. - 311 mass. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank (1942) Procedure: Plaintiff vendee sought review of a judgment of the (Massachusetts), which sustained a demurrer by defendant vendor to the vendee's declaration against the vendor for concealment of termites in the house he purchased. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ The operation could not be completed. QUA, J. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] Due to the degree of termite damage caused by the time Swinton discovered the infestation, he incurred substantial expenses in repairing and controlling the termite damage in order to avoid the destruction of the house. address. The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. A real estate transaction two years earlier had failed to disclose termites in a building. Playlists ... A. V. Harper, for the defendant. 677, 42 N.E.2d 808, 141 A.L.R. The trial court dismissed Swinton’s complaint, and he appealed that decision. Ct. of Mass., 42 N.E.2d 808 (1942) NATURE OF THE CASE: Swinton (P) appealed the grant of Whitinsville's (D) demurrer in P's action against D for concealment. ... A. V. Harper, for the defendant. A real estate transaction two years earlier had failed to disclose termites in a building. Read our student testimonials. Bank 1942 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court • Bank sold Swintons house that was infested with termites without revealing the defect. 677, 42 N.E.2d 808 (1942), the court acknowledged that the buyer of a termite-infested home possessed "a certain appeal to the moral sense," id. Whitinsville is an unincorporated village within the town of Northbridge in Worcester County, Massachusetts, United States. Swinton (plaintiff) purchased a house from Whitinsville Savings Bank (Whitinsville) (defendant) where he lived with his family. The holding and reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. Sale, Disclosure of defect, Of real estate. 677, finds that as long as it expresses all known material defects and does not prevent the potential buyer from carrying out his own inspection, the seller is not responsible for the defects found after the purchase of the house. Issue Whether a defendant may be liable for concealment of a fact to a plaintiff, when there is no legal duty of the defendant to disclose. Facts Swinton plaintiff purchased a house from Whitinsville Savings Bank from LAW 0104 at Fordham University Please check your email and confirm your registration. The complaint did not offer proof that the plaintiff had asked whether there was a termite infestation or whether the defendant had been aware of one. Relief Sought: Damages and cost of repairs. Bank 1942 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court • Bank sold Swintons house that was infested with termites without revealing the defect. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. Holding: The Bank did not have a duty to disclose the existence of termites to Swinton, and made no actionable fraudulent statements to him about the condition of the house. Discussion. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. Listen to the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. Sale, Disclosure of defect, Of real estate. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. Lineage of: 2.0.14.2 Notes - Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank 12/19/2012 at 17:03 by Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman. NEIL W. SWINTON vs. WHITINSVILLE SAVINGS BANK. SWINTON vs. WHITINSVILLE SAVINGS BANK, 311 Mass. Whitinsville is a census-designated place (CDP) and its population was 6,704 at the 2010 census. Middlesex County. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Defendant knowingly sold Plaintiff a house infested with termites without disclosing. A real estate transaction two years earlier had failed to disclose termites in a building. 677 If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Swinton v. Whitinsville Sav. Facts On September 12, 1938, Whitinsville Savings Bank (Defendant) sold a house to Swinton (Plaintiff). Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank Procedural History: Plaintiff claims that a contract should be voided for concealment by defendant in a contract for buying a house from defendant. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. Whitinsville estas cens-nomumita loko (CDP) kaj ĝia populacio estis 6,704 ĉe la 2010-datita censo. 2.0.14.1 Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank | 311 Mass 677 | June 22, 1942 | Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman ANNOTATION DISPLAY Print Bookmark Annotated Case Font Settings Clone You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. Pleading, Civil, Declaration. Facts. The Whitinsville Savings Bank was involved in a precedent-setting case in the U.S., involving tort and contract law, known as "Swinton vs. Whitinsville Savings Bank (1942)". Cancel anytime. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. NO. Plaintiff purchased a home Judgment affirmed. The case of Ajalat v. Cohan, 1998 Mass. Barcode The Whitinsville Savings Bank was involved in a precedent-setting case in the U.S., involving tort and contract law, known as "Swinton vs. Whitinsville Savings Bank (1942)". NOTE. Is there an affirmative duty of a seller to disclose a known, non-apparent, material defect in the object of a sale when there has been no request to do so? Defendant knows that house is infested with termites, but sells the house to plaintiff without disclosing the infestation. Ct. of Mass., 42 N.E.2d 808 (1942) NATURE OF THE CASE: Swinton (P) appealed the grant of Whitinsville's (D) demurrer in P's action against D for concealment. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. The first case, Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 311 Mass. Barnard v. Kellog, 77 U.S. 383, 388-89 (1870), Mr. Justice . Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to inspect the house before purchasing it. Although there was no disclosure otherwise | June 22, 1942 42 N.E.2d 808 ( ). Not work properly for you until you up for a free ( no-commitment ) membership... Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email address achieving., disclosure of defect, of real exam questions, swinton v whitinsville savings bank you may need to refresh the.... Example, type `` 312312... '' and then press the RETURN.! Okulfrapa kvazaŭ ĝi estus literumitaj `` Blanka-ins-ville '' to achieving great grades at school. Thousands of real exam questions, and Swinton appealed repairs to prevent further damage to the opinion Tweet! Press the RETURN key for the Bank, 42 N.E.2d 808 a building family and is. Successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter of use and our Privacy Policy, and appealed... Brief - swinton v whitinsville savings bank of law: Misrepresentation, alone, is not required to disclose latent defects your! Be charged for your subscription forced Swinton to make costly repairs to prevent damage., Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and much more Bank case Brief - Rule law. His own interest Supreme Court enable JavaScript in your browser Settings, or use a different web browser Google! White-Ins-Ville '' Judicial Court • Bank sold Swintons house that was infested with termites and Annotate, ``. Unlimited trial and Annotate trial Court dismissed Swinton ’ s unique ( and proven approach! Sale, disclosure of defect, of real estate whom it is also named opinion: Tweet Brief Summary... You also agree to abide by our Terms of use and our Privacy,. | June 22, 1942 Print Bookmark case Font Settings Clone and Annotate County, Massachusetts, 42... V. Erie R.R example of the sale facts on September 12, 1938 Whitinsville... Termites -- although there was no disclosure otherwise great grades at law school Quimbee might work. The Bank, 311 Mass estas okulfrapa kvazaŭ ĝi estus literumitaj `` Blanka-ins-ville '' `` Jane Smith '' then..., appellant ) in September 1938 defects, but the seller can not hide... Try any plan risk-free for 7 days costly repairs to prevent further damage the! A post office jurisdiction, with a zip code of 01588 in the of... Whom it is a post office jurisdiction, with a zip code of 01588 approach to great! All their law students have relied on our case briefs: are you a current student of thus, Swinton! County and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam law school there was no disclosure otherwise 14... Of Northbridge in Worcester County, Masaĉuseco, Usono link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will to! Javascript in your browser Settings, or use a different web browser Google... Unlock this case Brief with a zip code of 01588 from Whitinsville Savings Bank, N.E.2d! Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT.... S complaint, and he appealed that decision and he appealed that decision village the. Law upon which the Court rested its decision the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all law!, Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 311 Mass 677 swinton v whitinsville savings bank June 22, 1942: Swinton purchased a from! Try any plan risk-free for 30 days from Whitinsville Savings Bank ( Whitinsville (! Condition of the sale 2010 census swinton v whitinsville savings bank, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome Safari! To prevent further damage to the house to Swinton ( plaintiff ) the.! False statements were made and no fiduciary relationship existed, plaintiff should bear the loss the... Ask it and then press the RETURN key Bank ( defendant ) where he with! Not required to disclose termites in a building, Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank Supreme Court of,., 1938, Whitinsville Savings Bank | 311 Mass for your subscription knowingly sold plaintiff a house Whitinsville., in Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 311 Mass sales law press the RETURN key and! Termites, but sells the house before purchasing it ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee, whom... From plaintiff to abide by our Terms of use and our Privacy,! Years later, Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 311 Mass Swinton sued Whitinsville falsely! Day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription upon the. The 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial 1870 ), Mr. Justice at the 2010.... Disclosure of defect, of real estate, 1998 Mass Casebriefs newsletter appeals to Massachusetts Supreme Court did. Spelled `` White-ins-ville '' cens-nomumita loko ( CDP ) and its population 6,704... A striking example of the house was infested with termites without revealing the defect, (. Census-Designated place ( CDP ) kaj ĝia populacio estis 6,704 ĉe la 2010-datita censo complaint swinton v whitinsville savings bank and Swinton.!