Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cisler v. Ray

California Supreme Court

Decided August 31, 1931No. Docket No. S.F. 14122Published

1Dissent

LANGDON, J., Dissenting.

I dissent.

It seems to be conceded, and it could hardly be denied, that the specialist, although an officer of the exchange, acts in the capacity of agent of the brokers who deal in the stocks which he handles; and the broker would ordinarily be liable to the customer.for negligence or wilful breach of duty on the part of the specialist. (See Murphy v. Bishop, 182 App. Div. 805 [170 N. Y. Supp. 342]; Meyer, Stock Brokers and Stock Exchanges, p. 487.) It is true that the defendant entered into an express agreement to be bound by all rules, regulations and customs of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Robert Marsh Co., Inc. v. TremperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Wahl v. TracyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Klapp v. BacheNew York Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Murphy v. BishopAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918

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

Powered by the Exa API