Watson v. Crandall

• Decision Date: 20 May 1879
• Citation: 7 Mo.App. 233
• Parties: ROBERT S. WATSON, Respondent, v. ELI J. CRANDALL ET AL., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

7 Mo.App. 233

ROBERT S. WATSON, Respondent,

v.ELI J. CRANDALL ET AL., Appellants.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

May 20, 1879.

A. is responsible for the consequences of false representations made by him to B. and upon which C. acted to his loss, where it appears that A. intended that they should be communicated to C. and acted upon by him in the manner which occasioned the loss.

APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Affirmed.

T. C. FLETCHER, R. F. WINGATE, and J. B. BOWMAN, for appellants.

GLOVER & SHEPLEY and E. T. ALLEN, for respondent.

HAYDEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

In addition to the facts stated in the opinion delivered in the case of Hornblower against these defendants, it should here be said that on July 1, 1871, Hornblower received from Crandall eight certificates, of one hundred shares each, representing the stock in the Pioneer Mining and Smelting Company for which the drafts were sent by Hornblower. When Watson, Reed and Baker purchased, their names were inserted in blanks in certificates corresponding to their respective number of shares, and the company was advised accordingly. The referee finds that all of the representations made by Crandall to Hornblower came to the knowledge of the plaintiff Watson, and similarly to the knowledge of Reed and Baker, before their respective purchases of stock, through exhibition of letters or statements of Crandall, or oral communications of their contents by Hornblower to these several plaintiffs.

On these facts, the appellants insist that, as the present plaintiff and Reed and Baker had no communication with the defendants except as stated, the action, even if it lies between Hornblower and these defendants, does not lie in the present case, or in that of Baker or Reed. In support of this point the appellants rely especially on the cases of Seizer v. Mali, 32 Barb. 76, and Peek v. Gurney, L. R. 6 H. L. App. 377.

But, in the first place, the facts of the case at bar clearly distinguish it from both of these cases. As has been stated in the opinion in the case of Hornblower, the correspondence between Crandall and Hornblower shows, not only that the understanding that the shares of stock should be “placed,”--that is, disposed of to persons selected by Hornblower,--but that the names of such persons were to be filled in the blank certificates and returned to Crandall as allottees of the shares. This understanding was exactly carried out. Though Hornblower sent the drafts to cover the shares, the certificates were sent to him in blank, and he inserted, as he says, the names of the present plaintiff, of Reed, and of Baker, and of this action he advised the company.

There being such evidence to support the findings of the referee in this respect, the cases of Seizer v. Mali and Peek v. Gurney, supra, are not in point. Moreover it would appear that Seizer v. Mali is an overruled case. Index 41 N. Y. 619. See Cazeaux v. Rali, 25 Barb. 578; Shotwell...