Court Opinion

ID: 9831892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:27:14.442499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:10.920831
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Having concluded that the opinion of the court is subject to one of the criticisms made in the motion for rehearing, we make the following correction:
Beginning at “In the instant case,” if Moel-ler made misrepresentations of facts which would render him liable under the rule of law quoted in the original opinion (20 Cyc. 24), and the purchase was made upon the faith of such representations, the mere fact that Moeller, or King, informed the purchaser that the bank at Douglas held the stock, and that the latter, after receiving this information, had sufficient time and opportunity to have inquired of the bank about the title, or other representations of fact, before he made the purchase, will not absolve the former from liability for the misrepresentation, for if the representations were such as to induce the purchaser to believe them, and to prevent him from instituting any further inquiry in relation thereto, and he made the purchase relying upon the-information on the subject that he received-from Moeller, then the latter would be responsible for the fraud, and, too, even though he had disclosed the name of his principal..