Stebbins v. Leowolf
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of assumpsit,—the declaration containing the common money counts, — brought by the plaintiffs, who were brokers in the city of New York, to recover of the defendant, also of New York, the sum of $1512-03, and interest, for commissions and differences, on the purchase and sale of certain stocks, made by the plaintiffs under the order and for the account of the defendant.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit,—the declaration containing the common money counts, — brought by the plaintiffs, who were brokers in the city of New York, to recover of the defendant, also of New York, the sum of $1512-03, and interest, for commissions and differences, on the purchase and sale of certain stocks, made by the plaintiffs under the order and for the account of the defendant. It was in evidence, at the trial, which was before Wilde, J., in this court, that the plaintiffs, in pursuance of directions from the defendant, and on his account, on the 30th of November, 1841, made…
1Opinion of the CourtDewet, J.
The defendant alleges, that the contracts for the purchase of Harlaem Railroad stock, which are the sole ground of the claim in this action upon the defendant, were wholly illegal, being in violation of the statute of New York, in relation to stockjobbing. Rev. Sts. of N. Y. vol. i. p. 710.
A preliminary question was raised in. the argument of this case, though not particularly presented by any of the rulings of the presiding judge, at the trial before the jury, namely: whether, supposing the defence under this statute would be a good defence as between the vendor and vendee of the stock, the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Salter v. BurtNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Alderman v.PhelpsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1818
- Ex parte DodgeNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- J. & W. G. Ward v. Van DuzerThe Superior Court of New York City · 1829
3Cited by1 opinion
- Swetland v. SwetlandNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930