Court Opinion

ID: 9600262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:25:28.747412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:47.956034
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(dissenting).
The language of the statute1 imposing liability for repayment of the purchase price to a buyer of securities sold in violation of the law should be carefully noted:
*214“Every sale * * * made in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be voidable * * * and the * * * officer or agent who shall have participated or aided in any way in making such sale shall, upon tender to the seller of the securities * * * shall be liable to such purchaser for the full amount paid by him * *
I do not disagree with the holding in the case of Harper v. Tri-State Motors.2 It affirms the finding of the trial court that the defendant, Holbrook, as president of the defendant corporation was not personally liable, but indicates that the corporation and the secretary, Richards, should be held and grants a new trial as to them.
In regard to Mr. Holbrook the court stated that the fact that he signed the stock certificate “* * * is alone strong evidence” that he participated in the transaction.3 But indicated that he could not be held liable merely "* * * because he signed the stock certificate.” It was further observed that that was the only evidence of his complicity; that the evidence affirmatively showed that he was asked to sign some 14 blank certificates; that he had no knowledge of why that was done, but assumed they were for people who were stockholders ; that there was no affirmative evidence showing that he even knew what this particular certificate was for; that he did not know that the plaintiff, Harper, was purchasing stock or that he became a stockholder; and that he did not actually participate in the transaction which was handled and engineered exclusively by the secretary, Mr. Richards.
It should be borne clearly in mind that the Harper decision supports a finding made by the trial court. The rule is so familiar and oft-quoted that it is banal to repeat: that if there is any substantial basis in evidence such finding will not be disturbed. It seems to me that the main opinion herein patently runs counter to that rule. I do not gainsay that the perfunctory act of signing a stock certificate, without any other showing of knowledge or participation in a sale can reasonably be found not to come within the statute above quoted. But the facts in this case with respect to the secretary, Hall, are vastly different than the facts as to Mr. Holbrook in the Harper case. Incidentally, that case does not indicate whether, had the trial court found that he did participate, such finding might have been affirmed.
In the instant case we must view the evidence and every fair inference arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the finding of the trial court. In doing so, these facts are significant:
(a) Mr. Hall, who was a stockholder, director and secretary of the corporation, participated in the decision and gave his approval to the resolution authorizing Mr. *215Southam to sell stock in the corporation without any limitation as to whom or where it should he sold, although he either knew, or is charged with knowledge, that it could lawfully be sold only in the state of Nevada; (b) he attended the directors’ meeting held in Utah to which Southam brought Mr. Willis, known to be a Utah resident, and at which they discussed the prospect of Mr. Willis’ investing his money and becoming a stockholder in the corporation; (c) following this in natural sequence, Willis’ money was brought to him, which he accepted for the corporation; and (d) he issued the stock certificate to Willis and signed it as secretary. The foregoing facts must be judged not singly, but in the aggregate. So regarded it seems to me so clear as to be beyond per-adventure of doubt that the trial judge could reasonably find that Mr. Hall, “ * * * participated or aided in any way in making such sale,” thus meeting the statutory pre-requisite to the imposition of liability. Indeed, those undisputed facts are such that I seriously doubt that any reasonable mind could have found to the contrary. The fact that other officers of the corporation who had something to do with the transaction were not held should have no bearing whatsoever upon our review of the case as it affects Mr. Hall. There was no cross appeal challenging the failure to find them also responsible.
I would affirm the finding and decision of the trial court.

. Sec. 61-1-25, U.C.A.1953.

. 90 Utah 212, 58 P.2d 18.

. 90 Utah at p. 224, 58 P.2d 24.