Case, for deceit. Transferred without ruling from the May term, 1914, of the superior court by Young, J. The first count of the declaration alleges in substance as follows: In September, 1897, the defendant borrowed $600 of the plaintiff and gave as security therefor a mortgage of real estate. Subsequently she borrowed $200 more and gave the plaintiff a deed of the mortgaged premises, taking a bond for reconveyance.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1915-04-06
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2006
3 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶2
In an action for deceit, the plaintiff must allege and prove, not only that the representation was false, but also that it was made with a fraudulent intent.
Spead
v.
Tomlinson,
73 N. H. 46, 60. “ The declaration should include an averment of a
scienter,
that is, a knowledge by the vendor that the representation made is false,
*525
which amounts to fraud. The fraud being the gist of the action, an averment of it cannot be dispensed with. In this, all the authorities agree.”
Bedell
v.
Stevens,
28 N. H. 118, 125;
Hoitt
v.
Holcomb,
23 N. H. 535, 552;
Mahurin
v.
Harding,
28 N. H. 128, 131;
Hanson
v.
Edgerly,
29 N. H. 343, 357;
Pettigrew
v.
Chellis,
41 N. H. 95, 102;
Springfield
v.
Drake,
58 N. H. 19. The counts in the plaintiff’s declaration seem technically defective in this respect. As the case is understood, fraud is the ground of the plaintiff’s action. If that be the ease, permission to perfect the declaration by amendment will be granted as of course.
