Sawyer v. Prickett , 22 L. Ed. 105 ( 1874 )

86 U.S. 146 (____) 19 Wall. 146

SAWYER
v.
PRICKETT AND WIFE.

Supreme Court of United States.

Mr. M.H. Carpenter, for the appellant.

Mr. T.G. Frost, contra.

Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

The law gives a different effect to a representation of existing facts, from that given to a representation of facts to come into existence. To make a false representation the subject of an indictment, or of an action, two things are generally necessary, viz., that it should be a statement likely to impose upon one exercising common prudence and caution, and that it should be the statement of an existing fact. A promissory statement is not, ordinarily, the subject either of an indictment or of an action.^[*] The law also gives a different effect to those promissory statements based upon general knowledge, information, and judgment, and those representations which, from knowledge peculiarly his own, a party may certainly know, will prove to be true or false. It becomes necessary to classify, to some extent, the representations alleged to have been made in the present case.

1st. The facts alleged to have been represented as actually existing, but which it is said did not exist, are the following, viz., that the Fox River Railroad Company was an organized incorporation; that McConnell appeared as a subscriber for stock to the amount of $1500, when, by secret agreement with the company, he was a subscriber for $500 only; that one Woodell stood in the same position, giving the amounts; that one Sibley had become a subscriber for stock, and given his note and mortgage for the same, the amount not being specified; and that Conover represented himself as one of the officers of the company.

2d. The promissory representations, as might be expected, cover a larger space. Thus it is said to have been represented, that the farms and lands of the contributors would be greatly enhanced in value; that the wheat market of Milwaukee was a better market than that of Chicago, and that they would be able to command five cents more per bushel for their wheat after the road should be built; also that the road should be constructed and equipped within one year; also that the company would pay large dividends upon its capital stock; that where farmers and others became subscribers for stock, and gave their mortgages for the same on long time, drawing eight per cent. interest, that the company, from its dividends, would pay the interest on such notes, and that the balance of the dividends, after paying the interest, would be sufficient to pay the principal of the said notes when the same should become payable; and the defendant testifies that it was represented to his wife that it would be an everlasting benefit to her to sign the mortgage; that the railroad would probably make thirty per cent., and that it would give her and her family six hundred dollars a year always.

It is scarcely credible that Prickett should have believed that the persons making representations like these, intended to bind themselves to their fulfilment. That Prickett may have believed the prophecies, is possible; that he may have understood the makers to believe them is possible, as it is possible the makers did believe them. But that Prickett believed the makers to have undertaken for the accomplishment of the results promised, is not to be believed. It is contradicted by all the facts in the case. A man of common intelligence, or of ordinary prudence and caution could not have so believed.

He did not ask that they should enter into such engagements. He did not stipulate that his obligation to pay his note and mortgage should depend upon the realization of the rich promises made to him. On the contrary he made his subscription, gave his note and mortgage to secure its payment, and relied upon the success of the enterprise to indemnify and to enrich him. If there were dividends to pay the interest, he would not be required to pay it. If there were dividends applicable to the payment of the principal, the principal would also be discharged. If there were no dividends, or dividends to pay a portion only of his obligation, he must have known and understood that he had pledged his farm to the payment of the residue. If his present theory is correct, instead of giving security to them, Prickett should have required a bond and mortgage from the company, as the actual responsibility for results would rest on the company alone. We are satisfied that such representations, if made, were not relied upon by Prickett; that they did not form the inducement and consideration of his subscription.

This view is sustained by the additional writing made at the time the note and mortgage were executed. That paper recites the execution of the note and mortgage and their receipt in payment of the stock subscription; it stipulates that so much of the dividends of the stock as shall be sufficient to pay the interest on the note and mortgage is relinquished to the company, the company agreeing not to demand the interest, but to save Prickett harmless from the same. This would be well enough except for the two agreements immediately following in the same paper, viz., that Prickett undertakes in any event to pay the principal when it matures, and that the provision in relation to interest shall not be a defence on the part of Prickett to the payment of the interest, if the note or mortgage shall be in the hands of a third party, either as security or otherwise. So long as he bound himself, at all hazards, to pay the principal, and to pay the interest if the company should transfer the note, it is impossible to credit the theory that he relied upon the alleged promises and expectations as statements which the makers bound themselves to make good to him.

It is alleged that the representation was made that the road should be constructed and equipped, and in full operation, within one year from the date of the giving of the note and mortgage. Such a promise by parties giving the means of knowledge of its falsity, from their position as managers and directors of a railroad, might in law stand upon a different basis. We do not examine this point, as there is no evidence of such statement by any one professing to have knowledge, or that there was knowledge of its falsity, if made. Prickett testifies that Conover stated that the rolling stock would be on in eighteen months. His allegation in his answer and his evidence do not agree. It is not proved that Conover was authorized to make the statement, or that he did not believe it to be true.

It is difficult to see how an action or a defence can be based upon promissory representations of the character we have considered, and we are of the opinion that they were the expressions of hopes, expectations, and beliefs, and that neither party understood, or had the right to understand, that they were to be received as statements of facts which any one was bound to make good, or upon which the validity of the subscription should depend.

The alleged representation of existing facts requires consideration.

1st. It is stated that it was represented that the railroad in question was duly incorporated and fully organized. The statement, if made, is sustained by the evidence. It appears that the company had a regular charter; that it was organized by the election of directors, the choice of a president and secretary; and that it had expended considerable amounts of money in grading its road and in purchasing materials for its construction.

2d. It is said that the defendants were influenced by, and were deceived and defrauded by, a pretended subscription for $1500 of the capital stock of the road, made by McConnell, a man of wealth, of prudence, and caution, in whose judgment and discretion great confidence was placed, while in truth, by some secret agreement with the company he was a subscriber for $500 of stock only. The attempted proof of this allegation is a failure. It is proved on the other hand by the officers of the company, and by McConnell himself, that McConnell made a subscription for $1500; that it was a valid, bonâ fide subscription; that there was no condition, limitation, or qualification of it by any agreement, secret, or otherwise, and that he settled and arranged it as a subscription for $1500.

3d. It is alleged that one John Woodell subscribed $1000 upon a similar understanding or agreement. There is no proof to sustain the allegation. Prickett says that he has so heard, but that he has no knowledge on the subject.

4th. It is said that the persons obtaining, the subscription caused it to be represented that John Sibley, a man of wealth, of integrity, and of influence, had subscribed largely to the capital stock of the company. Prickett testifies that Sibley told him he had mortgaged his house and lot for stock, and that it would be a good thing, and that he and others induced him to sign. In answer to a question by his own counsel, "Would you have become a subscriber to the capital stock of this company, except from the fact that McConnell became a subscriber and the other parties you have named?" he says: "If they had not represented as they did, and if McConnell and other leading citizens of the town had not subscribed, I certainly should not; but the representation was an inducement to make the farmers subscribe." "See here, you put in $2000, and you get $600 for life. Is not that enough?" In effect, he says that he should not have subscribed except that McConnell and the others did so, but it is apparent that the controlling influence was the idea that if he subscribed for $2000 of the stock he should get a return of $600 for life.

To make this alleged representation a defence to the mortgage we must believe, first, that it was actually made. Prickett says that it was made. Sibley testifies positively that he never made it, that he had subscribed for $500 of stock in a road of Illinois having the same name, with which this was intended to connect, that he told Prickett of that subscription, but that he had never subscribed to stock in this road, and had never so stated to Prickett or to any one. If any statement was made it was more likely to have been made as to the road where he did own stock than to this one.

It must be believed, secondly, that Sibley was the agent of the company by whose acts or declarations they would be bound. Sibley denies any agency or authority, in fact or assumed, and there is no reasonable evidence to the contrary. He states that as a citizen, and one desirous to have the road built, he solicited subscriptions, and that he acted in this capacity only.

And lastly, it must be believed that Prickett relied upon the statement, that it was an inducement to him to become a subscriber. This has been sufficiently illustrated by what has already been said. These are all the allegations of misrepresentations in regard to existing facts. The evidence to sustain them is too weak to justify the decree.

The counsel for the defendants insists further that there has been a failure of consideration, and that a defence on that ground arises. We do not so understand it. The defendant received what he bargained for, to wit, a certificate that he was entitled to twenty shares of the capital stock of the company. He can, so far as the case shows, obtain his formal shares upon presentation of his certificate. The fact that the road is unprofitable, or that it has never been completed, does not entitle one who has paid in his subscription to the capital stock to recover it back, nor does it furnish a justification for a refusal to pay when the subscription has not, in fact, been paid. Moneys so paid or subscribed belong to the creditors of the corporation.

Nor does a defence arise from the separate paper in relation to the non-payment of interest, which has been before referred to. The paper expressly provides that it shall furnish no defence to the payment of interest if the note and mortgage shall be transferred to another party. It is the personal, separate undertaking of the company to save him (Prickett) harmless from the ultimate payment of interest, leaving Prickett to pay the interest if the security shall be transferred, and to resort to the company for reimbursement. The paper does not require that there should be an absolute transfer of the interest and title to the mortgage to cut off the defence. A transfer conditionally, or as security, is sufficient.

We see no reason, however, to doubt that the plaintiff is a bonâ fide holder. He paid a portion of the amount of the mortgage in money, and cancelled a valid debt against the company for the residue. He had no notice of any defence to the note, and received the note before its maturity. Under the rulings of this court it is not necessary to constitute a bonâ fide holding that the value should have been paid at the time of receiving the security. A past consideration is sufficient.^[*]

We have recently decided that the rule of bonâ fide holding applies to a case where the proceeding is to foreclose a mortgage accompanying a note, with the same force as when the suit is brought upon the note itself.^[†]

The plaintiff had not been a director for some time previously to the taking of this mortgage, and had no part in getting up this or the other mortgages. The proof shows a large expenditure in grading and preparing, and in the purchase of materials, after the giving of this mortgage. For what reason the enterprise failed does not appear. There is no evidence of fraud or bad faith.

The defendant's position is an unfortunate one, but we do not discover any principle upon which he can justly avoid the payment of his mortgage.

DECREE REVERSED, and the cause

REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

NOTES

[*] People v. Williams, 4 Hill, 9; Roscoe on Criminal Evidence, 362; Ranney v. The People, 22 New York, 413.

[*] Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters, 1; Goodman v. Simonds, 20 Howard, 343.

[†] Carpenter v. Longan, 16 Wallace, 271.