Southern St. F. & C. Ins. v. Cromartie

Supreme Court of Alabama

Southern St. F. & C. Ins. v. Cromartie

61 So. 907, 181 Ala. 295, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 157

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 17, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 So. 907 (Southern St. F. & C. Ins. v. Cromartie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Southern St. F. & C. Ins. v. Cromartie, 61 So. 907, 181 Ala. 295, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 157 (Ala. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

The pleading and evidence in this case are substantially the same as in the cases of This Appellant v. Brannon, 178 Ala. 115, 59 South. 60, Same v. Tanner, 180 Ala. 30, 60 South. 81, and Same v. Wilmer Store Co., 180 Ala. 1, 60 South. 99, decided adversely to appellant.

The point is made here, however, that the alleged false representations were made by defendant’s agent Cozart to Brannon, and not to complainant, and hence the latter had no right to act upon them, nor to complain of their falsity. The evidence shows that Cozart was engaged in selling defendant’s stock to Brannon, and that the representations in question were made directly to him, but it shows also that they were made in the presence and hearing of complainant, and,, further, that they attracted his attention and enlisted his interest in the stock as an investment. Immediately following the transaction with Brannon, complainant purchased from Cozart 20 shares of the stock. Cozart knew of complainant’s presence; and that he had heard the false statements made to Brannon. Hence, to all intents and purposes, these representations were made to complainant, and, under the circumstances shown, he had a right to rely upon them.

Moreover, since Cozart knew that complainant was misinformed as to material facts, by Cozart’s own willful statements, it became his positive duty to inform complainant of the true facts before he sold him the stock; and, failing to do so, his wrong was morally and legally the same as if he had originally made the false statements personally to complainant, and amounted in fact to a reaffirmation of them.

The interest allowed in the decree should have been on $500 instead of $520, making the true amount [297]*297$556.25. The decree will be corrected in this particular, and, as corrected, will be affirmed.

Corrected and affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Dowdell, C. J., not sitting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SOMERVILLE, J.

The pleading and evidence in this case are substantially the same as in the cases of This Appellant v. Brannon, 178 Ala. 115, 59 South. 60, Same v. Tanner, 180 Ala. 30, 60 South. 81, and Same v. Wilmer Store Co., 180 Ala. 1, 60 South. 99, decided adversely to appellant.

The point is made here, however, that the alleged false representations were made by defendant’s agent Cozart to Brannon, and not to complainant, and hence the latter had no right to act upon them, nor to complain of their falsity. The evidence shows that Cozart was engaged in selling defendant’s stock to Brannon, and that the representations in question were made directly to him, but it shows also that they were made in the presence and hearing of complainant, and,, further, that they attracted his attention and enlisted his interest in the stock as an investment. Immediately following the transaction with Brannon, complainant purchased from Cozart 20 shares of the stock. Cozart knew of complainant’s presence; and that he had heard the false statements made to Brannon. Hence, to all intents and purposes, these representations were made to complainant, and, under the circumstances shown, he had a right to rely upon them.

Moreover, since Cozart knew that complainant was misinformed as to material facts, by Cozart’s own willful statements, it became his positive duty to inform complainant of the true facts before he sold him the stock; and, failing to do so, his wrong was morally and legally the same as if he had originally made the false statements personally to complainant, and amounted in fact to a reaffirmation of them.

The interest allowed in the decree should have been on $500 instead of $520, making the true amount [297]*297$556.25. The decree will be corrected in this particular, and, as corrected, will be affirmed.

Corrected and affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Dowdell, C. J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 So. 907, 181 Ala. 295, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-st-f-c-ins-v-cromartie-ala-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack