Legal Opinion

Hyman v. Sachs

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 23, 1948PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteuer, J.

Plaintiff, in this transaction, acted through her husband, an attorney, and it is not disputed that his acts and information are attributable to her. The defendants are two brokerage concerns who act for customers and deal themselves in various securities. These concerns will be hereinafter referred to by the first names in their titles, respectively Josephthal and Goldman. In January, 1941, plaintiff gave defendant Josephthal an order to buy ten Series A 4%% income bonds of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Bailroad. At that time there were no such bonds. The railroad was then in…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Group of Institutional Investors v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R. Co., and 9 Other CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Ford v. SnookAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
  3. Ford v. SnookNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
  4. In Re Chicago, M., St. P. & PR Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1940
  5. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. v. Group of Institutional InvestorsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1941

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Shaw v. Dreyfus & Co.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1969
  2. White v. MERRILL, LYNCH, ETC.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1966
  3. C. K. Pistell & Co. v. Aetna Securities Corp.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1958
  4. Morey v. Edward D. Jones & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API