No. Barnard v. Kellog, 77 U.S. 383, 388-89 (1870), Mr. Justice . A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email Swinton alleged that the defendant fraudulently concealed the termite infestation. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank and Griffith v. Byers Construction Company. NO. The case represents a striking example of the caveat emptor principle: let the purchaser take care of his own interest. Your Name: For example, type "312312..." and then press the RETURN key. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. 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. Facts. Jud. Whitinsville estas okulfrapa kvazaŭ ĝi estus literumitaj "Blanka-ins-ville". Almost two years later, Swinton discovered that the house was infested with termites and had been at the time of the sale. Swinton (Plaintiff) purchased a home from Whitinsville Savings Bank (Defendant). If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. 677, 42 N.E.2d 808, 141 A.L.R. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. Plaintiff sued Defendant for. Judgment affirmed. Plaintiff received a prospectus regarding the Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. 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. 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. 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)". What rule did Swinton v. Whitinsville give us? • Question was whether Bank had duty to disclose presence of termites--although there was no disclosure otherwise. Plaintiff purchased a home This website requires JavaScript. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to inspect the house before purchasing it. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ 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. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank Supreme Court of Massachusetts, 1942 42 N.E.2d 808. Swinton sued Whitinsville for falsely and fraudulently concealing the condition of the house at the time of the sale. Swinton’s complaint did not provide sufficient facts to show that Whitinsville Savings Bank knowingly made false statements or misrepresentations. Whitinsville, "The Shop" Location in Worcester County and the state of Massachusetts. 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. For example, type "Jane Smith" and then press the RETURN key. - 311 mass. 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 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. 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. It is a post office jurisdiction, with a zip code of 01588. Bank 1942 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court • Bank sold Swintons house that was infested with termites without revealing the defect. Swinton v. Whitinsville Sav. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. A real estate transaction two years earlier had failed to disclose termites in a building. Read more about Quimbee. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] Davis delivering the. The procedural disposition (e.g. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. 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. There is not liability for bare nondisclosure. ). A real estate transaction two years earlier had failed to disclose termites in a building. sign out sign in. Cancel anytime. 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. Defendant wins in lower court and plaintiff appeals to Massachusetts Supreme Court. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. The seller cannot purposefully hide a latent defect. No contracts or commitments. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank | 311 Mass 677 | June 22, 1942 Print Bookmark Case Font Settings Clone and Annotate. NEIL W. SWINTON vs. WHITINSVILLE SAVINGS BANK. Bank Case Brief - Rule of Law: A selling party is not liable for failing to disclose defects. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. 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. Whitinsville Savings Bank (D) sold a house to Swinton (P, appellant) in September 1938. Middlesex County. 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. Co. of Kansas, Inc, International Products Co. v. Erie R.R. The case of Ajalat v. Cohan, 1998 Mass. 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)". 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. 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. Sale, Disclosure of defect, Of real estate. Derry v. Peek Case Brief - Rule of Law: Misrepresentation, alone, is not sufficient to prove deceit. Held. Summary of Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 42 N.E.2d 808 (1942). Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. 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’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. 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)". Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. 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". Synopsis of Rule of Law. The case Ajalat v. 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. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. What rule did Griffith v. Byers give us? Defendant did nothing to purposefully hide the condition from Plaintiff. • Question was whether Bank had duty to disclose presence of termites--although there was no disclosure otherwise. It was founded by the Whitin family, after whom it is also named. Pleading, Civil, Declaration. The operation could not be completed. The first case, Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 311 Mass. Whitinsville is an unincorporated village within the town of Northbridge in Worcester County, Massachusetts, United States. A seller is not required to disclose latent defects. 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. Facts. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings, 1942: Swinton purchased a dwelling house from Whitinsville Bank which was infested with termites. Whitinsville is a census-designated place (CDP) and its population was 6,704 at the 2010 census. SWINTON vs. WHITINSVILLE SAVINGS BANK, 311 Mass. 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. 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? Two years later a termite infestation forced Swinton to make costly repairs to prevent further damage to the house. Defendant knowingly sold Plaintiff a house infested with termites without disclosing. Lineage of: 2.0.14.2 Notes - Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank 12/19/2012 at 17:03 by Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman. Bank 1942 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court • Bank sold Swintons house that was infested with termites without revealing the defect. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Almost two years later, Swinton discovered that the house was infested with termites and had been at the time of the sale. Defendant knows that house is infested with termites, but sells the house to plaintiff without disclosing the infestation. Whitinsville is pronounced as if it were spelled "White-ins-ville". Pleading, Civil, Declaration. Bank 1942 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court • Bank sold Swintons house that was infested with termites without revealing the defect. Co, Credit Alliance Corporation v. Arthur Andersen & Co, Citizens State Bank v. Timm, Schmidt & Co. Thus, in Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 311 Mass. 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 This Div. • Question was whether Bank had duty to disclose presence of termites--although there was no disclosure otherwise. Fraud. Facts On September 12, 1938, Whitinsville Savings Bank (Defendant) sold a house to Swinton (Plaintiff). Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. SWINTON v. WHITINSVILLE SAVINGS BANK. Facts. 01/21/2015 at 01:37 by RobaHamam; Current Annotated Text … address. 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. The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. Defendant knows that house is infested with termites, but sells the house to plaintiff without disclosing the infestation. 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. 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. ... A. V. Harper, for the defendant. Defendant wins in lower court and plaintiff appeals to Massachusetts Supreme Court. The first case, Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 311 Mass. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. Swinton (plaintiff) purchased a house from Whitinsville Savings Bank (Whitinsville) (defendant) where he lived with his family. Because no false statements were made and no fiduciary relationship existed, Plaintiff should bear the loss. QUA, J. Listen to the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary. The trial court held for the Bank, and Swinton appealed. swinton v. whitinsville savings bank Sup. 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." We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. Sale, Disclosure of defect, Of real estate. 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™. 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. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. Swinton (plaintiff) purchased a house from Whitinsville Savings Bank (Whitinsville) (defendant) where he lived with his family. Discussion. Swinton v. Whitinsville Sav. Buyer beware. Whitinsville estas neagnoskita vilaĝo ene de la urbo Northbridge en Worcester County, Masaĉuseco, Usono. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. SWINTON v. WHITINSVILLE SAVINGS BANK. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. 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." You also agree to abide by our. Please check your email and confirm your registration. Jud. It was founded by the Whitin family, after whom it is also named. Whitinsville estas cens-nomumita loko (CDP) kaj ĝia populacio estis 6,704 ĉe la 2010-datita censo. The holding and reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. Facts Swinton plaintiff purchased a house from Whitinsville Savings Bank from LAW 0104 at Fordham University The first case, Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 311 Mass. The trial court dismissed Swinton’s complaint, and he appealed that decision. Read our student testimonials. No contracts or commitments. 2.0.14.2 Notes - Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank. The case of Ajalat v. Cohan, 1998 Mass. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case Then click here. Nature of the Case: Fraudulent concealment. 677 NEIL W. SWINTON vs. WHITINSVILLE SAVINGS BANK. You're using an unsupported browser. 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. 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. Barcode In the case of Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 311 Mass. Cancel anytime. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. neil w. swinton vs. whitinsville savings bank. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] NOTE. Fraud. Listen to the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary. Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? Swinton v. Whitinsville Sav. A seller is not required to disclose latent defects, but the seller cannot purposely hide a latent defect. swinton v. whitinsville savings bank Sup. A real estate transaction two years earlier had failed to disclose termites in a building. 677 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. This principle found its most powerful expression in nineteenth century sales law. QUA, J. If not, you may need to refresh the page. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank Facts: defendant sold house to plaintiff and family and house is infested with termites. 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. Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank Supreme Court of Massachusetts, 1942 42 N.E.2d 808. Playlists ... A. V. Harper, for the defendant. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. * 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. Issue. Relief Sought: Damages and cost of repairs. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.