Repplier v. Jacobs
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 295, Jan. T., 1892, from judgment of G. P. Berks Go., May T., 1891, No. 56, for defendant, F. S. Jacobs, n. o. v. for plaintiff, J. F. Repplier. Assumpsit for money had and received.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 295, Jan. T., 1892, from judgment of G. P. Berks Go., May T., 1891, No. 56, for defendant, F. S. Jacobs, n. o. v. for plaintiff, J. F. Repplier. Assumpsit for money had and received. On the trial, it appeared that the plaintiff had deposited with the defendant, a broker, $1,500, as margin to cover possible losses on purchases of Reading Railroad General Mortgage Bonds to the amount of $15,000. Defendant became embarrassed and his Philadelphia correspondents sold out his holdings, including plaintiff’s bonds, the sale of which showed a profit of $344.27, which amount defendant paid…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Mitchell,
This case is very similar to Peters v. Grim, decided at the present term, and is governed by the same principles. In this as in that case the transactions, whatever their character, were completed and over, an account had been rendered, accepted and settled, the profits distinguished and separated from the original deposit, and paid over to the plaintiff, leaving in defendant’s hands only the deposit, which both parties recognized as plaintiff’s money, held by defendant as such. Even conceding the prior transactions to have been gambling operations, that…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Conradt v. LepperWyoming Supreme Court · 1905
- Smyth v. GlendinningSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Overholt v. BurbridgeUtah Supreme Court · 1905
- Lukens v. Oliver H. Bair Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Assigned Estate of L. H. Taylor & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.