42 , · FEDERAL nnronrnn.
True, Mr. Chief Justice WA1·rE, with whom concurred Justices SWAYNE
· and BRADLEY, delivered a dissenting opinion; not upon the general
question, however, but on the special ground that it appeared that
A. gave his client the certificate in question with knowledge, or reason
to know, that he intended to use it in a business transaction with a
third person, as evidence of the facts contained therein, and was
therefore liable to each person for any loss resulting from a reliance
* on such certificate, in any particular, which might have been pre-
vented by the exercise of ordinary care and skill on the part of A.
But this is not the case. The defendant prepared this certificate at
the instance and for the use of his client, the Oregon & Washing-
ton Trust Investment Company, and none other. Nor was there
anything in the nature of the business that informed him or gave
, him any reason to believe that any other person would be called upon
to act upon it, or part with any right or thing of value on thestrength ·
of the representations contained in it. Such a certificate made at
the instance of the owner of the property may be usedto influence a
third person to make a loan thereon; but a certificate made for the
information of the lender is presumably made for his use alone, and
whenthe loan is made and the security accepted it is functus qgjicio
—-has performed its office. The defendant is liable to the Oregon
& Washington Trust Investment Company for any loss sustained by
it on account of any error or mistake in the certificate, arising from
a` want of ordinary professional skill and care in the preparation of
A it, and not otherwise. But he is not so liableto the plaintiff, or
· any third person. There is no privity of contract between them, or
any relation whatever.
The ruling is also maintained in H ouseman v. Girard M. B. e6L. Ass’a,
81 Pa. St. 256, in which it was held that while the recorder of deeds
is liable in damages for a false certificate of title, but only to the
party who employs him to make the search, and not his assignee or
alienee. And in Wirzterbottom v. Wright, 10 Mees. & W. (Exch.) 109,
it was held that although. the maker of a carriage is liable to the per-
son for whom he makes it, for any loss or injury arising directly
from negligence it its construction, that he was not so liable to any
` third personwho might use the same, for the reason there was no
privity of contract between them.
The statement of the second cause of action is of the same char-
acter as the first; and it is also defective in not stating absolutely ‘
that the certificate is untrue. The allegation that in 1883 the bank
"‘found out" that Howard did not own the property, is not in form
or effect an averment that he did not own the same and had not title
thereto at thedate of the certificate. It does not appear to have
been "found out" in any judicial, proceeding that the certificate was
t untrue in this respect; and while it may, nevertheless, beshown in
this actionto be a fact, it must first be alleged, so that issue can be
taken on it; Q Because in 1,883 the bank was ofthe opinion that How-