Flores v. Toffelmier

BARNARD, J.,

pro

tem.

The facts in this case are essentially the same as those in

Brewis

v.

Toffelmier et al.,

[340]

ante,

p. 329 [275 Pac. 819], The plaintiff herein purchased shares of stock in the same enterprise involved in that case, in the latter part of December, 1920, and again in March, 1921. In general, the allegations of the complaint as to claimed misrepresentations and conspiracy, and the findings, of the court, are the same in both cases. The cases were tried together, in conjunction with still two other cases, and this appeal is from a similar judgment in favor of the defendants. While there is a separate appeal in each case, all four cases were submitted on a single set of briefs. While there are claims of minor misrepresentations in this case, not raised in the Brewis case, these are flatly contradicted in the evidence, and call for no discussion. Most of our discussion in the case of

Brewis

v.

Toffehnier, supra,

applies as well to the points raised here.

This plaintiff testified that copies of the printed prospectus, referred to in the Brewis case, were given him by two of the defendants, and further that he relied upon the representations contained therein. The two defendants concerned denied giving him such copies. Nothing in the prospectus was proved, without contradiction, to have been a misrepresentation, and the court found the statements therein were true when made, it being also found that while the statements therein relative to selling the stock without paying broker’s commissions were true when made, this plan was later abandoned as unsuccessful. Appellant urges that these were continuing representations, upon which he was entitled to rely until personally notified of any change. Assuming such to be material misrepresentations, which is doubtful, the making of them was denied. And there is some evidence that he did not believe such representations or rely upon them. He testified that he presumed at the time that the person selling him stock was being paid. He also testified: “I thought the company was running along good. Many people spoke about it, it was known around town, everybody was speaking about it. I would hear them, but I could not remember anybody. There were hundreds of stockholders. It was a sort of local industry that people had pride in. I heard people speak of it prior to the time I bought stock. They said it was a good thing. It brought more people into town and made business. More valuable real estate, all that sort of stuff. ... I thought I would help