628 FEDBBAL BEFOBTEB. �The liability of this defendant depends upon the question whether he committed any fraud by his own conduct and representations, and it is not to be defeated by showing that others have, or have not, committed like frauds. If, for ex- ample, the paper in question had passed through the hands of a number of persons after it lef t those of defendant, each in turn inaking the same false and fraudulent representations as to its validity, would it be insisted that the last purchaser would be obliged to join all the previous holders in one suit ? How could he know who-had held and transferred by delivery the paper, except in the case of the person from whom he ob- tained it? He might sue that person, but, in order to re- cover, it would be neoessaryfor him to allege and prove that he relied upon his representations, and not upon those em- bodied in the instrument. If he relied upon the latter, and acted in gooi faith upon them, his right of action would be against the maker of the paper — the party who, by signing it and placing it upon the market, certified to the truth of the statements it contained, and gave it currency. In all such cases it is, of course, neoessary for the plaintiff to show that he acted upon the false representations, and that he had a right to act upon them. If the party suing is not the party to whom the false representations were made, it must appear thatthey were made with the intent that they should be acted upon by these parties, and that they were acted upon by him. �The Bnglish cases cited by counsel for defendant illustrate and enforce this doctrine, and show that all that is required of the plaintiff here is to show some direct connection be- tween the defendant and himself in the communication of the certificates and its influence upon plaintiff's conduct in ibecoming a purchaser thereof. Barry v. Croskey, 2 J. & H. 117; Peek v. Gurney, Law Eep., 6 House of Lords, 377; and Thompson on Liability of Officers, etc., 309. We have seen no case which holds that it must be made to appear that the fraudulent representations were made directly and individu- ally to the plaintiff. It is enough if he was authorized to act upon them and did so. If it be true that the defendant ��� �
