People's Bank v. Bogart
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgement in favor of the defendants, entered upon an order dismissing the complaint. The law is well-settled that a holder of commercial paper, offering it for sale, is bound to disclose any knowledge he may have of any facts materially affecting and depreciating its value.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgement in favor of the defendants, entered upon an order dismissing the complaint. The law is well-settled that a holder of commercial paper, offering it for sale, is bound to disclose any knowledge he may have of any facts materially affecting and depreciating its value. (Brown v. Montgomery, 20 N. Y., 287; and, see, Lancey v. Clark, 64 id., 212; Kerr on Fraud, p. 94, 95; Addison on Torts, p. 399; Olark v. Banner, 2 Lansing, 67; 2 Kent, 483; Rawdon v. Blatch-ford, 1 Sandf. Ch., 344; Allen v. Addington, 7 Wend., 9, 23, 24; Paddock v. Strowbridge, 29 Vermont, 470; Bench v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Beady, J.:
The object of this action was to recover from the defendants, who composed the copartnership of Orlando M. Bogart & Co., *272note-brokers and dealers in commercial paper in the city of New York, the sum of $34,455.83 damages for alleged fraud in the sale of certain acceptances by the copartnership firm of Duncan, Sherman & Co., a banking firm doing business m the city of New York, of drafts drawn on them by one Alexander Burgess. The complaint contains the necessary allegations to present fully the theory upon which the plaintiff’s expected to succeed, and the answer controverted the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Wheeler v. . NewbouldNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Haskins v. WarrenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Ross v. . MatherNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Beirne and Burnside v. . DordNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Thompson v. AshtonNew York Supreme Court · 1817
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.