Nelson v. Blanchfield
New York Supreme Court
THE plaintiff, on or about the 7th day of October, 1868, employed the defendant, who had represented himself to the plaintiff'as a'“mining stock broker,” and a member of the Hew York Mining Stock Board, to purchase for him, for cash, two hundred shares' of Combination Silver Mining stock, and for that purpose gave him $1200, which was more than sufficient, at the time, to purchase said stock.
Read the full summary
THE plaintiff, on or about the 7th day of October, 1868, employed the defendant, who had represented himself to the plaintiff'as a'“mining stock broker,” and a member of the Hew York Mining Stock Board, to purchase for him, for cash, two hundred shares' of Combination Silver Mining stock, and for that purpose gave him $1200, which was more than sufficient, at the time, to purchase said stock. The defendant bought the stock through some other person, he not being a member of the Board of Mining Stock Brokers, but refused to surrender or deliver the same to the plaintiff when requested so to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Clerke, P. J.
As to the facts upon which the order of arrest.was based, and which constitute the gist of the action, we would, in ordinary eases, allow the *636former to stand and' abide the trial of the issues. Their truth or falsity, in an action of tort, should never be decided on a motion. But, in this case, after the perpetration of the alleged frauds, there was a settlement between •the parties; the plaintiff accepting the defendant’s note for $700, 100 shares of Combination Silver stock, and a due-bill for 200 shares of that stock. This was a waiver of his right to arrest the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Griswold v. SweetNew York Supreme Court · 1875
- McDonough v. DillinghamNew York Supreme Court · 1887
- Obregon v. De MierNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1877
- Welch v. WinterburnNew York Supreme Court · 1878