MEYERS . V. CENTERS. 1005 MYERS V. CENTERS. • Opinion delivered October 18, 1926: FRAUD— MISREPRESENTATION.—Where plaintiff voluntarily paid an assessment on his sister's bank stock, which she was in law hound • to pay in any event, his payment was an indirect loan to her, and the fact that plaintiff was induced to make such loan t.y defendant's false representations as to the value of the stock did not render defendant liable to plaintiff. Appeal from Boone Circuit Court; J. M. Shiva, Judge ; reversed. . Woods & Greenhaw and E G. Mitchell, for appellant. Shouse & Rowlantd, for appellee. • HUMPHREYS, J. This suit was brought -in a:magistrate's court in Boone County for appellee against appellant to recover $90, which he had paid for his sister, Miss Centers, upon a 30 per cent. assessment which had been made by the Bank Commissioner of thdState against $300 worth of stock owned by her in the Farmers' Bank at Harrison, Arkansas, which was subsequently closed
1006 MEYERS V. CENTERS. [171 for the purpose of liquidation. The gist of the complaint „ was that he had paid the assessment for his si g er, upon the representation of appellant, who Was president of the 'bank, that the 30 per cent. assessment against the stockholders would put said bank on a sound financial basis and make it as good as any bank , in'llarri g on, and that he would guarantee that said stock Would be worth, in a short time, 125,per cent. on the dollar. Appellant orally ,denied the material allegations in •he complaint, and, !upon a trial of the cause,, appellee -! • recovered a.. judgment against him for $90, froM which judgment he•duly. prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court. . On the trial de novo in the circuit court, appellee again recovered judgment in the ,sum of $90 against appellant, from which is this appeal. The testimony introduced by appellee tended to establish that misrepresentations had been made to appellee by appellant as to the solvency of said bank and the value of said stock, which induced appellee to pay the 30 per cent, assessment, amounting to $90, against • his sister's stock for her, and that, a short time thereafter, the bank. was liquidated, at . the instance of the , Bank Commissioner; which ,liquidation resulted in appellee's sister losing her stock and in appellee losing the amount of the ` assessnient he paid foi her. • The testimony introduced by appellant tended to show that he made n'o such misrepresentations to appellee. • . The cause was sent to the jury on the sole issue of whether such misrepresentations had been made by-,. appellant to appellee, over the Objection and exception ; of appellant,— and the finding of the jury upon that issue is, conclusive: . The,weight . of the evidence was-a question 'solely for the 'jury . ; appellant contends, however, that the court erred' in allowing the case to turn upon this issue, in 'view of the undisputed fact that appellee paid a stock assessment for his sister which the law required her to pay. Appellee testified that his
ARK.] MEYERS V. CENTERS. 1007 - sister refused to pay the assessment, whereupon he paid it for her, being induced to do so ;through the misrepresentations of appellant as to the condition Of the bank and the value of ' the'stock. He also teStified that, when the bank went into liquidation, his sister lost _her .stoCk, and he lost the amount of the assessment he.had paid for her. As we nnderstand the testimiiny, he did nof-,riurj chase his sister's stock, but, oil the'Contiary, advdnckI the money to_ pay an assessment Which the law reqUired her to pay. It was an indireof loan to her for . the fur-pose of paying her assessment, and -; viihnitary' g o .fa:i -as she waS conceined. - -• • Appellee insists 'that the 'instant' c.se is : ruled by the case of Myers v. Martin, 168 Ark: 1028, 272 S: W. 856. So far as the fssu-e of Misfepresentationsis cOncerned, the two cases are alike, but they . are di g similat upon the'isSue of liability. Martin was induced to purchase stock and p-ay the assesSment thereon, as a single transaction, through misrepresentations. In the instant •case, appellee"Wag induced to pay the assesSMent for his sister, which she was bound fo par under the law, through misrepres'enta-- tions. In other words, appellee was not induced to -buy anything' on acCount of raistepresentations made to him by appellant. BY voluntarily -making the payment for her, he took her place. It was her duty, to pay the assessment, with or Without misrepresentations, and she cOuld not have based a cause of action against appellant for paying the assessment upon his misrepiesentations. On account of the error indicated the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.'
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.