McCutcheon v. . Dittman
New York Court of Appeals
Cross-appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 28,.1898, modifying and affirming, as modified, a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee.
Read the full summary
Cross-appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 28,.1898, modifying and affirming, as modified, a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. This action was brought to recover certain shares of stock, or the value thereof, which had been pledged by plaintiff with the defendant Dittman as security for the payment of a jiromissory note for $1,000. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinions. The referee was right in holding that the defendants S. Isaacs & Co. were chargeable…
1Opinion of the CourtBartlett, J.
The judgment should be reversed as to the defendants 8. Isaacs & Company.
We agree with the referee that, under all the circumstances, 8. Isaacs & Company are chargeable with the knowledge of their attorney in regard to the stock in question and cannot be deemed bona fide purchasers thereof at the sale. It is undoubtedly the settled rule that a principal is only chargeable with notice communicated to, or knowledge acquired by his agent in another transaction at another time and when he was acting for another principal when clear proof is made that the knowledge or notice was present in the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Constant v. . University of RochesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
3Cited by10 opinions
- Farr v. NewmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1964
- Title Guarantee Trust Co. v. . Pam.New York Court of Appeals · 1922
- In re Locust Bldg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
- State Bank v. BacheNew York Supreme Court · 1937
- Fanchild Investors, Inc. v. CohenCivil Court of the City of New York · 1964
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.