Legal Opinion

People, for Use of Harley v. Hendrie

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 5, 1933No. Docket No. 63, Calendar No. 37,134PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtFead, J.

The action is to recover $4,400, the purchase price paid by plaintiff to Hendrie, Hall & Murphy, licensed dealer in securities, under the blue sky law, so-called (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 9769 et seq.), on sale of corporate stock which had not been accepted for filing by the Michigan securities commission. Defendant is surety on the dealer’s bond, the condition of which is:

“The said Hendrie, Hall & Murphy and all salesmen registered by him shall faithfully comply with the provisions of Act No. 220, Pub. Acts 1923, as amended. ’ ’

Defendant had judgment on trial before the court without a jury. The…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sauer v. Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Vogler v. GustinMichigan Supreme Court · 1932

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Pacific Insurance Co. of New York v. MartinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API