Opinion ID: 2207421
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: It was error to direct a verdict in favor of the individual defendant Prentice.

Text: There was evidence, some of it undisputed, from which the jury could have found that plaintiff reposed special confidence in Prentice, he being an ordained minister; that he and his wife were the only stockholders, directors and officers of the Chalmers Company; that he had represented to her that the corporation was financially sound and capable of building her house, [6] whereas in fact the corporation did not even have a bank account; that he assured her that the corporation could and would go to work on her house as soon as she paid the $2500; that he would immediately begin to excavate for the basement of her proposed house and that they could have it completed to the first floor within a week; that he would put a crew of men to work at once. It was in evidence that no work was ever begun on the house and that the fifteen other houses he had told her he was building were actually completed under a trusteeshiphe having later made an assignment for the benefit of creditors. Since we are considering only the propriety of the directed verdict, we need not discuss defendant's denials and explanations. We think the evidence was ample to take the case to the jury on the question of Prentice's personal liability for fraudulent misrepresentations; hence the judgment as to him must be reversed. On the retrial plaintiff should be given wide latitude in developing the full picture of the relationship between plaintiff and his corporation and the handling and disposition of corporate funds, including the $2500 received from this plaintiff. This brings us to another contention of plaintiff which is that the trial judge erroneously barred her claim of fraud against the corporation and required her to go to the jury on the sole issue of breach of contract. We think plaintiff's position is correct. As we have seen, there was enough evidence to establish that Prentice had acted fraudulently; and the fraud of an officer engaged in corporate business becomes at law the fraud of the corporation. [7] But since plaintiff did obtain a full judgment against the corporation the question is now academic. And it seems clear that she is not entitled to have that claim retried on two theories instead of one; for she could do no more than win it again. Judgment affirmed as to Security Savings and Commercial Bank; judgment affirmed as to Chalmers Co., Inc.; judgment reversed as to James H. Prentice with instructions to award a new trial as to him.