Legal Opinion · Dissent

Freeman v. Jergins

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 27, 1954No. Civ. 19740Published

1Dissent

VALLÉE, J.

I dissent. I am of the opinion that plaintiff, whether he be called a “finder,” an “introducer,” or what not, was a broker within the meaning of the Corporate Securities Act and that he was required to have a license. A broker includes every person, other than an agent, who engages either wholly or in part in the business of selling, offering for sale, negotiating for the sale of, or otherwise dealing in, any security issued by others. (Corp. Code, § 25006.) “Sale” includes every “attempt to dispose” of a security, and it includes “an attempt to sell” and “a solicitation of a sale.”…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Shaffer v. BeinhornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Crofoot v. SpivakCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  3. McKenna v. EdwardsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  4. Holway v. MalloyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  5. Mason v. MazelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API