Court Opinion

ID: 9452344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:37:44.289888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:10.569039
License: Public Domain

RIVES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The majority points out that: “Although the transaction had three steps, the record bears out, and the Court impliedly found, that no commitment to purchase the bonds from Tucker was made by Rauscher, Pierce until it had a firm commitment for resale to the Water Bond Purchasers. The theory is, then, that the false information furnished by Volz was a fraudulent misrepresentation to them as much as to the Water Bond Purchasers.”
Arnold J. Kocurek, Senior Vice President and Director of Rauscher, Pierce, testified:
“Q. Under that calculation from your books can you also say what profit net, after all deductions and payment of commissions and expenses Rauscher, Pierce made in connection with the purchase of the bond issue from Tucker, and the sales to Connecticut Mutual and State Mutual?
“A. The figure is $59,436.55. That is before overhead.
“Q. Now, the net figure not including overhead, was what per cent?
“A. It was 4 per cent of the par value of the bonds.”
It seems clear to me that the loss of Rauscher, Pierce under the. bond should be computed from the transaction as one integrated whole. I therefore respectfully dissent from the judgment of af-firmance.