Legal Opinion
Faroll v. National Surety Corp.
New York Supreme Court
Decided May 10, 1960PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMatthew M. Levy, J.
The substance of the complaint follows:
Joseph Faroll & Co. (to whose interests the plaintiffs succeeded, and who will be called plaintiffs hereinafter) were stockbrokers. Their address was New York City. In 1956, one Albert J. Gould of Toronto, Canada, posing as a reputable and financially responsible businessman, caused himself to be presented to the plaintiffs. In order to gain their trust and confidence, Gould introduced to the plaintiffs several persons who executed some minor transactions and.promptly met their obligations. During May and June, 1957, Gould obtained from the president and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hartol Products Corp. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
- Walls v. . BaileyNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Condon v. Associated Hospital ServiceNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
- Morgan v. Greater New York Taxpayers Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. CorpCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1953
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Clarke v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.New York Supreme Court · 1967
- Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Transamerica InsuranceDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1987
- Selective Insurance Co. of America v. County of RensselaerNew York Supreme Court · 2011
- Julien J. Studley, Inc. v. Carol Management, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1962
- Rozay v. Hegeman Steel Products, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1962