{
  "id": 1445739,
  "name": "Howard BUTLER v. Herman COMIC",
  "name_abbreviation": "Butler v. Comic",
  "decision_date": "1996-03-18",
  "docket_number": "95-215",
  "first_page": "725",
  "last_page": "727",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "323 Ark. 725"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "918 S.W.2d 697"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "307 Ark. 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1902411
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/307/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 Ark. 466",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1935149
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/312/0466-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 Ark. 620",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1910522
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/315/0620-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 Ark. 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1910446
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/315/0318-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 Ark. 474",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1443766
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/317/0474-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 4148,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.904,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5330875625009783e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2838445407434951
    },
    "sha256": "6ec36ab5aeb9b6da3e6f19a68c88e0205e242ec86d5b93eb641be249965d99da",
    "simhash": "1:8afadc245decd552",
    "word_count": 691
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:17:29.924838+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Howard BUTLER v. Herman COMIC"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment in a deceit action. Howard Butler, the appellant, brought the action against the appellee, Herman Comic, who is a notary public. Mr. Butler claimed he had suffered a loss because of a deed acknowledgment falsely notarized by Mr. Comic. Judgment was rendered in favor of Mr. Comic because there was no showing that Mr. Butler had relied on the notarization by Mr. Comic. We affirm the judgment.\nThe undisputed facts are as follows. Two members of the Mackintrush family, Johnny Mackintrush and his sister, presented a deed to be notarized. The quitclaim deed purported to be by ten brothers and sisters in favor of their brother \u201cJohnny Lee Mackintrush.\u201d Mr. Comic saw only the grantor \u201cJohnny Mackintrush\u201d sign the deed and took the word of Johnny Mackintrush and his sister that all the signatures were valid. He notarized the instrument, stating in his certificate that all the purported grantors were known to him to be the persons whose names were subscribed to the deed and that they \u201cpersonally appeared\u201d before him to acknowledge their signatures.\nThereafter, Johnny Lee Mackintrush sold the property by warranty deed to Mr. Butler. Mr. Butler purchased a homeowner\u2019s policy from American General Property Insurance Company (American General). A fire loss occurred, and Mr. Butler claimed against the policy seeking $20,000 for loss of a dwelling, $10,000 for loss of contents, and $2,000 for living expenses.\nIn the course of investigating the claim, American General examined Mr. Butler\u2019s title and concluded not all of the signatures on the deed to Johnny Lee Mackintrush were valid. American General refused to pay, and Mr. Butler joined his claim against it with his claim against Mr. Comic. American General settled by paying $5,000, apparently on the basis that one or two of the signatures might have been valid, and thus Mr. Butler owned some undivided interest in the property. The claim against American General was dismissed. Mr. Butler pursued his claim for the losses against Mr. Comic.\nOne of the five elements of the tort of deceit or fraud is \u201cjustifiable reliance on the representation\u201d; another is \u201cdamage suffered as a result of the reliance.\u201d Roach v. Concord Boat Corp., 317 Ark. 474, 880 S.W.2d 305 (1994); Wheeler Motor Co. v. Roth, 315 Ark. 318, 867 S.W.2d 446 (1993). Mr. Butler argues the Trial Court erred because the doctrine of constructive fraud supports his claim despite the lack of evidence of reliance. No such argument was made to the Trial Court, so we decline to consider it. Grandjean v. Grandjean, 315 Ark. 620, 869 S.W.2d 709 (1994); Oliver v. State, 312 Ark. 466, 851 S.W.2d 415 (1993).\nMr. Butler\u2019s only other argument is that the Trial Court should have applied the doctrine of transferred intent. As with constructive fraud, we have no evidence that the doctrine of transferred intent was presented by Mr. Butler to the Trial Court. It was, however, mentioned in the judgment, so we will answer the argument briefly.\nIn Fidelity Mortgage Co. v. Cook, 307 Ark. 496, 821 S.W.2d 39 (1991), we explained that, although the doctrine of transferred intent is generally not applicable in cases of misrepresentation, when a document is intended to be directed to others in addition to the immediate recipient, or where it is customary for the document to be relied upon by third parties, the doctrine of transferred intent will be applied to support a case of misrepresentation. The element of the tort of deceit supplied by the doctrine is that of intent to deceive rather than that of reliance which the Trial Court found to be missing in this case.\nMr. Butler argues that anytime one purchases real property there is reliance on the chain of title. No authority is cited in support of that statement. Although Mr. Butler testified, he did not even mention having examined Johnny Lee Mackintrush\u2019s title. The Trial Court did not err in finding no evidence of reliance.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph Patterson, for appellant.",
      "Herman Comic, pro se."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Howard BUTLER v. Herman COMIC\n95-215\n918 S.W.2d 697\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 18, 1996\nRalph Patterson, for appellant.\nHerman Comic, pro se."
  },
  "file_name": "0725-01",
  "first_page_order": 759,
  "last_page_order": 761
}