Court Opinion

ID: 9538268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:33:56.430488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:42.426155
License: Public Domain

JACKSON, Justice
(concurring specially)-
I concur in the majority opinion for the reason that public policy will not permit an. escrow depositary to avail himself of any advantage that his position may give him-to profit beyond the agreed compensation, if any, for his services.
In 19 Am.Jur., Escrow, § 13, at page 430, it is said that in a broad sense an escrow depositary is the agent of both parties, but that strictly speaking he is not an agent but rather the trustee of an express trust with duties to perform for each of the parties. He is not empowered to aid either of the parties.
In 30 C.J.S. Escrows § 8, at page 1206. it is said:
“He (the depositary) is also liable for negligence in caring for the property deposited with him, or for breach of duty of good faith toward the depositor in personally acquiring such property at an inadequate price, * * * ” (citing French v. Orange County Inv. Corporation, 13 P.2d 1046, infra).
*669In the cited case (French v. Orange County Inv. Corporation) it is said:
“We are convinced that the bank, as depositary of the deed here involved, owes to the grantors the utmost good faith, and cannot exercise the power conferred by its position as holder to use the paper for its own benefit or to the advantage of its president for an entirely different object to that for which it obtained it. * * * ”
In the ninth paragraph of the editorial syllabus therein it is said:
“President of bank with which landowners deposited deed owed utmost good faith to landowners, and could not be allowed to profit personally.”
In McHaney v. McHaney et al., 209 Ark. 337, 190 S.W.2d 450, 162 A.L.R. 1175, it was said :
“The rule governing the relationship of appellant and appellees is stated in the case of Walthour v. Pratt, 173 Ark. 617, 292 S.W. 1017, 1020, as follows: “ ‘Everyone, whether designated agent, trustee, servant or what not, who is under contract or other legal obligation to represent or act for another in any particular business or line of business or for any valuable purpose must be loyal and faithful to the interest of such other in respect to such business or purpose. He cannot lawfully serve or acquire any private interest of his own in opposition to it. This is a rule, of common sense and honesty as well as of law. The agent is not entitled to avail himself of any advantage that his position may give him to profit beyond the agreed compensation for his services. He may not speculate for his gain in the subject-matter of the employment. He may not use any information that he may have acquired by reason of his employment, either for the purpose of acquiring property o.r doing any other act which is in opposition to his principal’s interest.’ 21 R.C.L. 825.”
The foregoing statement was quoted with approval in an escrow depositary case in Collins v. Heitman, 225 Ark. 666, 284 S.W.2d 628, and is cited in the majority opinion.
I am of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to submit the case to a jury on the question of whether Mr. Brewer violated his duties as an escrow depositary and has become liable for any dereliction thereof. It is for this reason that I have quoted from the above mentioned cases in order to isolate and give greater emphasis to this proposition than is given by the majority opinion.