State v. Zingher, No. 25215.

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Higbee
• Citation: 302 Mo. 650,259 S.W. 451
• Parties: STATE v. ZINGHER.
• Docket Number: No. 25215.
• Decision Date: 04 March 1924

259 S.W. 451 302 Mo. 650 STATE
v.
ZINGHER. No. 25215. Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2. March 4, 1924.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jackson County; E. E. Porterfield, Judge.

Nathan Zingher was convicted of obtaining a loan by false pretenses. He appeals. Reversed, and defendant discharged.

Burns & Watts, of Kansas City, for appellant.

Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and J. Henry Caruthers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HIGBEE, C.

The defendant was convicted of having obtained a loan of $4,000 from the Union State Bank of Kansas City by false pretenses as to his financial worth, and sentenced to a term of four years in the penitentiary. The information is based on section 3343, R. S. 1919.

The appellant, by his motion in arrest, challenges the sufficiency of the information. Omitting formal parts, it charges that—

On May 25, 1920, the defendant did then and there "represent, pretend and say to the Union

259 S.W. 452

State Bank, its agents and officers, that he, the said Nathan Zingher, then and there had in his possession under his control and owned by him assets amounting to $34,700 and that his total liabilities were $7,900, and that he, the said Nathan Zingher, was then and there actually worth in moneys and property over and above his debts, liabilities and exemptions, the sum of $26,800, and that the amount of all his liabilities of any kind or character whatever on the 25th day of May, 1920, amounted to $7,900."

Then follow averments that the officers and agents of the bank, believing and relying on said representations, made defendant a loan of $4,000 of the bank's money, and the defendant, by means of said false pretenses, obtained a loan of $4,000 from the bank with intent to cheat and defraud, and that defendant did not then and there have assets in the amount of $34,700; that $7,900 was not all of his liabilities, and defendant was not worth over and above his debts, liabilities, and exemptions, $26,800.

1. The statement, as pleaded, was that the defendant had assets, etc.; that his total liabilities were $7,900 and that he was worth in moneys and property, over and above his debts, liabilities, and exemptions, the sum of 826,800. Obviously the statement of "the value of his property and of his net worth was not the statement of a fact, but the defendant's opinion or judgment. In 25 C. J. 595, § 19, it is said:

"The statement of an opinion or judgment, even if false, will not sustain an indictment for obtaining property by false pretenses."

See cases cited in note, among others, that a certain party was wealthy or worth a certain specified amount, citing Com. v. Stevenson, 127 Mass, 446. This accords with the rulings in Missouri. "A mere opinion, however false, is not a false pretense." State v. Bradley, 68 Mo. 140. 142, cited in State v. Eudaly (Mo. Sup.) 188 S. W. 110, 112. In State v. Barbee, 136 Mo. 440, 443, 37 S. W. 1119, 1120, Judge Sherwood said:

"Thus, in further illustration of this point it has been ruled that: `A sale of goods induced by the buyer's false representation that he had in his office a certain quantity of property liable to his debts, as a means of obtaining credit, will not warrant an indictment. Common prudence would require the prosecutor to resort to other information.' Rapalje on Larceny, etc., § 406; State v. De Hart, 6 Baxt. 222."

The subject was thoroughly considered by the late Judge Ellison in Bragg v. Kirksville Packing Co., 205 Mo. App. 600, 608, 226 S. W. 1012, 1015, where the learned judge said:

"Now it is held in many jurisdictions and commonly stated in text-books that mere statements of value are not actionable and even if made in bad faith, they were to be regarded as `dealer's talk.' Massachusetts affirms the latter view (Deming v. Darling, 148 Mass. 504) and applies it even though the parties were not on equal footing. (Parker v. Moulton, 114 Mass. 99.) A complete examination of the cases in Missouri will show extreme statements either way. Some that a vendee though in possession of all his faculties, may lie limp and indolent in his credulity, and yet be allowed to occupy the time of the courts in setting up a guardianship for him. Such persons look upon the courts as children do a parent, ever watchful that they be guarded against their own behavior. But the better opinion is that the courts should encourage self-reliance and turn out those who, having no incapacity, yet apply to the court to do for them what they should have done for themselves. We said in Cahn v. Reid, 18 Mo. App. 115, that even though one loses life or limb, if it came about by his failure to care for himself he is without redress. Yet in instances involving a few dollars as against a life, some cases extend a helping hand, no matter if listless indifference and neglect have been substituted for ordinary prudence and common sense.

"It is so natural for one to look with favor upon his own property, and such is his selfish desire to extol its value, that men., as far back as we know anything of them, have ever understood that it was unsafe to trust to the opinion of a seller as to the worth and virtue of his own property. * * *

"The latest discussion and ruling we have on this subject in this state is found in Stonemets v. Head, 248 Mo. 243, 262-269. In that case Judge Lamm says that `the doctrine of "let the buyer beware" must be reckoned with and that simple general commendation is allowable as puffing and dealer's talk, yet there is boundary that may not be crossed.' Continuing (p. 262) he said (italics ours) that `The right general doctrine is that where parties without knowledge of their own, or without * * * means of knowledge, as for example when they reside a distance away buying, in reliance on misrepresentations of material facts known to be false...