Evening star., 1934-01-15
AWARDED S22,5|O
IN DAMAGE SUIT
Mrs. Louise T. Chambers
Granted Judgment Against
Real Estate Agent.

Mrs. Louise T Chambers. who lost a
small fortune through the manipula-
tions of Harry Haynes. former presi-
dent of the Farmers and Mechanics
National Bank, won a Judgment to re-
cover s22,50O from another source to-
day when the Court of Appeals held
she had been cheated to that extent by
a real estate agent.
Mrs. Chambers. in a suit against Will
liam A. Hill and William A. Hill Co..
Inc. received a Judgment for S22,500,
which the Court of Appeals today af-
frmed.
She owned property at 2ooe Massa-
chusetts avenue. which was subject to
mortgage for $4,000. She placed this
property for sale or rent with william
G. Lipscomb, who had been her agent
eral years. The court found that in
1925 he induced her to trade her equity
in the Massachusetts, avenue property
to the Hill Co. for the equity in some
other property on U street. Acting on
Lipscomb's recommendation, she made
the trade.
SViu iiVp0ity Nv AiVh"
Less than a week after the trade the
Hill company sold the Massachusetts,
avenue property for s25 600 more than
the mortgage Later, the court found,
she learned that the property she had
gotten in the exchange was worth little,
if any more than the amount OF the
mortgage on it.
Some four years later she discovered.
according to the courts findings. that
Lipscomb had not only received bro
ker's commission from her in the ex-
change transaction, but had been paid
a like commission by the Hill company.
After this discovery she brought suit
to recover from the Hill company the
monetary loss she had suffered.
The trial court made certain findings
of fact in favor of Mrs. Chambers,
which were affirmed on appeal. The
opinion held, in part. as follows:
I'VE have a case in which an mex
perienced woman unaccustomed to busi-
ness dealings. totally unfamiliar with
property values. and trusting implicitly
in the representations of her agent, was
induced to exchange property worth
$25. 900 for property worth nothing. In
plain speaking. she was cheated to the
extent of approximately $4,000. In
such case no one would contend that
the injured rarty was without remedy
against the faithless agent. but appel
lants chill & Coz insist that, while that
may be true. the evidence does not sus-
tain the lower courts finding that Lips
comb was also appellants agent or that
the latter participated in his wrong, but
we think it does in both respects.
Learned of Deal Later.
"There Is no dispute that Hill l. Co.
paid Lipscomb in excess Of $500 as
commission. and the evidence of Mrs.
Chambers is that she knew nothing of
this until she discovered 1t some four
years later. There is likewise evidence
that this payment to Lipscomb was
understood aRd tacitlS agreed to at the
commencement of the negotiations, and
that it was in this secret role that he
succeeded by untrue statements in in
ducing Mrs. Chambers to part with her
property That is enough. Such con-
duct cannot be too strongly condemned.
and, where it has occurred. the princi-
pal may repudiate the entire transac-
ton and enforce reparation for losses
sustained.
"The facts in the present case show
the wrong of the agent, the connivance
of the beneficiary and the loss to the
victim. The rule that In such circum-
stances the beneficiary should be re-
quired to disgorge is, therefore appli-
cable"