Whitehouse v. Moore
The Superior Court of New York City
The complaint in this action, omitting some merely formal parts, was as follows: ' I. That the plaintiffs are partners, doing business in the city of Hew York as bankers and brokers, under the firm-name of “ E. Whitehouse, Son, & Morison.”* II.
Read the full summary
The complaint in this action, omitting some merely formal parts, was as follows: ' I. That the plaintiffs are partners, doing business in the city of Hew York as bankers and brokers, under the firm-name of “ E. Whitehouse, Son, & Morison.”* II. That as stockbrokers, on or about the 20th day of October, 1860, they purchased for and on account of the defendant, and at his request, the following stocks-[naming the stocks and prices], said stocks to be paid for by the defendant at the expiration of thirty days from the day of purchase, with the right to the. defendant to pay for said stocks at…
1Opinion of the CourtHoffman, J.
—The defendant employed the plaintiffs, as his brokers and agents, to purchase certain stocks, and advanced to them $2,000 on account. The plaintiffs having made the purchase, were compelled to pay the whole amount, and the de*145fendant having failed to pay the balance due, they did in accordance with the custom of brokers in such cases, without notice to or demand upon the defendant, or tender of the stocks, sell the same at certain prices. They sue for the difference and commissions, &c.
Merwin a. Hamilton (6 Duer, 249) is a full and decisive authority in support of the demurrer to this-…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Horton v. MorganThe Superior Court of New York City · 1856
- Merwin v. HamiltonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1856