Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-02-25
WARDLAW URGES
DISMISSAL OF SUIT
Denies SWartzeII, Rheem &
HenSey Were Agents of
NotehoIderS.

George A. Wardlaw, 1705 Surrey Lane,
who with his wife Is named among 200
noteholders in the suit of Frank Tom
linson against the Swartzell, Rheem g.
Hensey receivers, today filed an answer
In his own words, asking the court to
dismiss the proceeding and denying
that the investment firm was acting as
agent for the noteholders when it re-
ceived a payment of $4,000 for lend
ing the money to TomlinSon to build
an apartment at 1417 N street.
The answer reads in part
1T is a fundamental concept of politi-
cal economy that capital is timid and
easily frightened. Normally, capital
stays in hiding until lured or enticed
therefrom by assurance of safety as to
both principal and interest Knowing
this, enterpreneurs have. time out OF
mind, employed those skilled in the art
OF enticing capital from its place of
refuge so that the entrepreneurs might
make use of this form of stored labor
for their particular profit. In return
for such services entrepreneurS pay lib
orally, usually fixed percentage Of the
sum obtained. Thus the skilled money
getter becomes the paid agent of the
entrepreneur.
Not NotehOlder's Agent.
ITO hold that the moneygetter, who
is paid by the entrepreneur. acts as
agent for the person who reluctantly
transfers his funds from a place of
safety TO place Of risk is untenable
Such a contention, If sustained by tie
court, would serve to drive all savings
to refuge, for no one would remove his
savings from a place of safety TO a
place where the savings risked null
tiple chance of being lost. For If the
plaintiffs contention were sustained and
the person who hires out TO find and
transmit money were held as the agent
of the lender, then. in turn, the entire
preneur, who transmits the money to
various contractors for work and ma
terial, would likewise become the agent
of the lender This would give rise to
a vicious economic circle, in which even
the unpaid artisans and laborers might
join, all at the expense of the innocent
investor. In such circumstances all
savings would stay in hiding, industry
would languish and people would perish.
Public interest then demands that the
contention of the plaintiff be denied by
the court
For these reasons I deny that the
SwartZell. Rheem g. Hensey Co. acted
as agent for the defendant noteholders,
of which am one, but contend that it
did act specifically as paid agent of the
plaintiff in endeavoring to procure GER
tain sums of money to be used in con-
nection with the erection, as a specula-
tive venture by the plaintiff. of GER
tain building described In the plaintiffs
complaint.
Suit Dismissal Asked.
"If, as alleged by the plaintiff, the
Qy
as agents for the defendant neteholders,
why did not the defendant noteholders
pay the Swartzell Rheem & Hensey
Co. for the privilege of risking their
savings in the plaintiffs speculative en-
terprise? And If, as alleged by the
plaintiff, he paid $4,000 to the Swart-
zell, Rheem & Hensey Co., then arises
this query: BY what right and for what
purpose did the plaintiff pay money in
any amount to the agent of the defend
ant noteholders?
Since the Swartzell, Rheem & Hensey
Co. was evidently the paid agent OF
the plaintiff, and since the defendant
has fulfilled his obligations to the
plaintiff, as evidenced by a promissory
note now in the defendants possession,
giving the plaintiffs promise to pay, for
value received, the sum of $500, it is
contended that any obligation, now alive
in the case rest, not with the defendant
note holder, but with the plaintiff. 1t
is therefore respectfully requested that
the suit be dismissed.