Legal Opinion

Eddy v. Schiebel

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided November 7, 1930PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaines, J.

The jury could reasonably have found from the evidence that the plaintiffs were stockbrokers doing business as partners with offices in Hartford, and a branch office in New Haven in charge of one Arnold. On October 4th, 1929, the defendant, through Arnold, requested the plaintiffs to effect the purchase for him of twenty shares of Electric Bond & Share stock and agreed to pay therefor the purchase price and the customary broker’s charges. The order for purchase was promptly telephoned to the Hartford office by Arnold. This stock is traded in on the New York Curb Exchange and in order to make…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Richardson v. ShawSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  2. Markham v. . JaudonNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
  3. Skiff v. StoddardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
  4. Harris v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  5. Samuels v. OliverIllinois Supreme Court · 1889

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Englehart v. CassattSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. Weiss v. Dempsey-Tegeler & Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1969
  3. Lane v. GriswoldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API