Evening star., 1934-06-04
COURT OF APPEALS
SETS ASIDE AWARD
AGAINST TITLE CO.
Grace L. Hutton Loses Claim
in Lost Savings Stock
Case.
JUSTICE HITZ VOICES
DISSENTING OPINION
Scores Influential Men Who Lend
Their Names to Promotion
Schemes.

The Court of Appeals today set
aside an award of 81 500 to Grace L.
Hutton, who invested and lost her
savings in stock of the Capitol Title
g. Guarantee Co., Inc. but Associate
Justice William Hitz, in a dissenting
opinion. voiced severe criticism of in
fluential men who carelessly lend
their names to stock promotion
schemes
Her suit was brought against the
Capitol concern and the New York
Title & Mortgage Co., a $4,000 900
concern, which had agreed to in
demnify and guarantee titles to real
estate approved by the local company.
Suggests Local Stock.
The plaintiff in 1929 went to her
bank here and asked the cashier to
purchase certain stocks for her. The
cashier, according to the testimony
at the trial, discouraged her invest
ment in listed stocks and suggested
that the stock of a local company
was better investment. A few days
later a stock salesman for the local
company came to her home, saying
he had been sent by the bank cashier.
In the course OF their conversation
the salesman showed her a circular
containing a letter written to the To-
cal by the attorney for the New York
concern. This letter stated that Tex
perts" for the New York company had
inspected the plant of the local COM
pany and had pronounced it to be
one of the finest title plants in ex-
istence."
The plaintiff said she relied On the
statements in this letter in purchas-
ing stock, but the New York company
said it was written for advertising
and publicity" purposes and not in
tended to be used in stock sales.
False Statement Conceded.
Although conceding that some OF
the statments in the letter were false,
the ma ajority opinion of the court was
that the plaintiff could not recover
on this ground because the writer OF
the letter did not intend it to be used
in stock-selling campaigns.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice
Hitz said in part.
My examination of the records
! leaves no doubt that the local plant
was fake, the inspection was farce
and the statement in the letter touch
ing both was false within the knowl-
edge of the man who made it, who
was one of the so-called experts
making the so-called examination
, If the maker of this statement
had negligently scratched the plain
tiff's arm with his pen, he or his
company would have been liable for
the resulting damage, and if his
negligence in the use and custody of
what he writes with the same pen
! results in equal or greater damage.
| he or his company should be SIM
ilarly liable.
"A man occupying an influential
! position in modern business by his
| false statement may affect the vel
! fare of many persons whom he never
sees or who never hear his voice. and
he should be held at least to as high
| measure of responsibility for his
reckless pen as for his negligent mo-
tor car For his pen may impoverlsh
| thousands, while his car can hurt but
few"
Cite Legal Writer.
The ma jority opinion cited one
| noted legal writer in upholding its po-
sition that, while a statement made
| directly by one person to another with
intent to defraud is actionable. the
intervention of third party "insu-
lates" the original act of negligence
from the injury
Justice Hitz pointed out that when
this observation was originally made
I'VE had not yet achieved publicity
i campaigns, with interlocking direc-
torates. and brazen stock statesmen in
vading woman's house by secret in
formation from her banker that she
had saved few dollars which might
be enticed away from her."
The majority opinion, holding that
the trial court should have directed
a verdict for the New York company.
ordered the case sent back for a new
trial. Attorneys George P. Hoover
and James C. Rogers appeared for the
defendant.