Legal Opinion
Falk v. Spingarn
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided April 15, 1935PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSchackno, J.
The defendants are stockbrokers and the plaintiff was their customer. The testimony shows that the defendants bought and carried for the plaintiff upon margin certain stocks, which they held as security for the amount unpaid by him, and which they had advanced for such purchases; on February 3, 1930, such advances amounted to $633.36. Under these circumstances, *356the relationship that existed between plaintiff and the defendants was that of pledgor and pledgee. (Matter of Mercantile Trust Co., 210 N. Y. 83; Drake v. Hodgson, 192 App. Div. 676.) The defendants were not obliged to keep on hand…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Markham v. . JaudonNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Strasbourger v. . LeerburgerNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Eddy v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- In Re the Accounting of Mercantile Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1913
- Mahnk v. BlanchardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bembridge v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1963
- Dime Savings Bank v. BarnesNew York Supreme Court · 1971