Legal Opinion · Dissent

Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided October 14, 1946No. 843Published

1DissentJustice Frankfurter

“Investment contract” is not a term of art; it is a conception dependent upon the circumstances of a particular situation. If this case came before us on a finding authorized by Congress that the facts disclosed an “investment contract” within the general scope of § 2 (1) of the Securities Act, 48 Stat. 74,15 U. S. C. § 77b (1), the Securities and.Exchange Commission’s finding would govern, unless, on the record, it was wholly unsupported. But *302that is not the case before us. Here the ascertainment of the existence of an “investment contract” had to be made independently by the District Court…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Allen v. Trust Co. of Ga.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1945
  3. Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1945

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API