Flores

The facts in this case are essentially the same as those in Brewis v. Toffelmier et al., ante, p. 329 [ 275 Pac. 819 ], The plaintiff herein purchased shares of stock in the same enterprise involved in that case, in the latter part of December, 1920, and again in March, 1921. In general, the allegations of the complaint as to claimed misrepresentations and conspiracy, and the findings, of the court, are the same in both cases. The cases were tried together, in conjunction with still two other cases, and this appeal is from a similar judgment in favor of the defendants. While there is a separate appeal in each case, all four cases were submitted on a single set of briefs. While there are claims of minor misrepresentations in this case, not raised in the Brewis case, these are flatly contradicted in the evidence, and call for no discussion. Most of our discussion in the case of Brewis v. Toffehnier, supra, applies as well to the points raised here.

This plaintiff testified that copies of the printed prospectus, referred to in the Brewis case, were given him by two of the defendants, and further that he relied upon the representations contained therein. The two defendants concerned…