Day v. Holmes
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The first two actions were on promissory notes made by the defendant; the third action was brought by the defendant in the former actions against the plaintiff in those actions, to recover for the alleged conversion of shares of mining stock. The cases were referred to George W. Phillips, Esq., as auditor, and submitted to the judgment of the superior court upon his report as an agreed statement of facts.
Read the full summary
The first two actions were on promissory notes made by the defendant; the third action was brought by the defendant in the former actions against the plaintiff in those actions, to recover for the alleged conversion of shares of mining stock. The cases were referred to George W. Phillips, Esq., as auditor, and submitted to the judgment of the superior court upon his report as an agreed statement of facts. The auditor found that “ there was a general, well known usage, among stockbrokers in Boston, in filling orders for stock ” deliverable at any time, at buyer’s option, within a certain…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The able report of the auditor, and his clear marshalling of the complicated facts of these cases, have greatly aided the court in determining the principles of law which underlie the rights of the parties.
The first controverted question which arises is, as to the validity of two notes given by the defendant in settlement of *308the purchase of the Pontiac and the Hancock stocks. The transactions in regard to each of these notes are substantially the same. It is therefore necessary to consider in detail only one of them. The facts as to the Pontiac stock are as follows: On August 30, 1866, the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pickering v. DemerrittMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
3Cited by18 opinions
- In re the Election of Directors of the Argus Printing Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
- Hunter v. First National BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
- Moore v. Waterbury Tool Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
- Hook v. CraryNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1966
- Monotype Composition Co. v. KiernanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.