Karamanou v. H. v. Greene Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1922
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
• Parties: KARAMANOU v. H. V. GREENE CO., Inc.

124 A. 373

KARAMANOU

v. H. V. GREENE CO., Inc.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Hillsborough.

June 29, 1922.

Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Branch, Judge.

Action by Stylianos Karamanou against the H. V. Greene Company, Inc. Demurrer to complaint overruled, and case transferred on defendant's exception. Case discharged.

Case upon the following declaration: In a plea of the case for that the defendant on the 22d day of October, 1918, received from the insurance commissioner for the state of New Hampshire, acting under and by virtue of chapter 202, section 8, of the session laws of the general court of the state of New Hampshire for the session of 1917, a license to sell certain securities known as the stock of the Commercial Finance Corporation; that on the 19th day of April, 1919, said insurance commissioner for the state of New Hampshire canceled the license of the defendant to sell the stock aforesaid, and thereof notified the defendant; yet, the defendant thereafterwards, notwithstanding the provisions of said statute and the prohibition of the insurance commissioner, sold to the plaintiff certain certificates for the purchase of stock of said Commercial Finance Corporation, to the damage of the plaintiff, as he says, the sum of $400.

To this declaration the defendant demurred, assigning the following reasons: (1) That the statute under which plaintiff claims is unconstitutional, in that it attempts to deprive the court of the authority to decide the question of law; (2) that the alleged failure of the defendant to comply with the statutes does not give the plaintiff any right of action against the defendant; (3) that the alleged sale of securities set forth in the plaintiff's declaration does not allege that they were not of the value paid for them by the plaintiff. Subject to exception, the demurrer was overruled. Transferred by Branch, J., from the September term, 1921, of the superior court.

James A. Broderick, of Manchester, for plaintiff.

Marcel Theriault and Cobleigh & Cobleigh, all of Nashua, for defendant.

PARSONS, C. J. The wrong of which the plaintiff really complains, it is inferred from the declaration and briefs, is the sale to him by the defendant of certain securities of less value than the amount he has paid for them. His contention is that by virtue of the fact that the sale was made in violation of the provisions of chapter 202, Laws 1917, he may maintain his suit without proof of the facts essential to recovery in a common-law action of deceit.

The defendant's first ground of demurrer is that the statute upon which plaintiff relies, "An act to protect the public against the sale of worthless securities," is unconstitutional. The reason assigned in the demurrer is:

"The statute * * * is unconstitutional, in that it attempts to deprive the court of the authority to decide the question of law."

The provisions of the statute upon which this contention is based are not pointed out. The act provides for the decision by the insurance commissioner of certain questions of fact. Part 2, art. 4, of the Constitution, gives' the general court full power "to erect and constitute judicatories and courts of record or other courts * * * for the hearing, trying, and determining all manner of * * * actions, causes, matters, and things whatsoever, arising or happening within this state." There can be no constitutional objection to the investing of the insurance commissioner with judicial power as to the matters in question. The statute does not attempt to remove him from the superintending power of the Supreme Court as to questions of law, if the attempt to do so would violate the Constitution. This power to create inferior tribunals has been frequently exercised. Boody v. Watson, 64 N. H. 162, 198, 9 Atl. 794. The ground upon which it can be successfully questioned is not apparent. The objection taken has not been argued; no other has been pointed out. The contention as to the constitutionality of the law is therefore understood to be abandoned, and is overruled without further consideration. See Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U. S. 539, 559, 37 Sup....