Legal Opinion
Barnes v. Hirsch
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 4, 1925PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
The defendant Schatzkin, Bernstein & Co. moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that it appears upon the face thereof that the plaintiff has not legal capacity to sue and that the amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The complaint alleges that Cowley & Co. conducted a bucket shop; that by false and fraudulent representations they induced their customers to deal with them as legitimate stockbrokers and to buy securities on margin and deposit cash and collateral with *11them; that promptly after buying securities for their customers they…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In re Beachy & Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1909
- Butterworth v. O'BrienNew York Supreme Court · 1863
- Monroe v. BushnellMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
3Cited by32 opinions
- Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Walter Wagoner, Jr., TrusteeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Wight v. BankAmerica Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Kirschner v. KPMG LLPNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
- Mediators, Inc. v. Manney (In re Mediators, Inc.)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Bankruptcy Services, Inc. v. Ernst & Young (In Re CBI Holding Co.)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.