Legal Opinion
Singleton v. Harriman
New York Supreme Court
Decided May 26, 1933PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShientag, J.
The judgment of the court is as follows:(1) The stock was purchased by plaintiff in reliance upon false and fraudulent representations concerning the bid and asked prices.
*324Instead of a bona fide market for the stock, the price was artificially maintained and known so to be by the officers making the misrepresentations.(2) The defendant bank is hable for the false representations made by its president. Having acquired the stock, the bank acted within its lawful powers in disposing of it. (Lantry v. Wallace, 182 U. S. 536.) The bank is liable for the false representations made by the officer who…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lantry v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Hotaling v. A. B. Leach & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Hotaling v. A. B. Leach & Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1926
3Cited by7 opinions
- Jaskow v. Harriman National Bank & Trust Co.New York Supreme Court · 1935
- People v. S. W. Straus & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1935
- Teich v. Arthur Andersen & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1963
- Singleton v. HarrimanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
- Goess v. Lucinda Shops, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.