Legal Opinion
Duncan v. Stoneham
New York Court of Appeals
Decided February 18, 1930PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Per curiam
In their letter to the plaintiff, requesting that he consent to a transfer of their stock brokerage business to E. H. Clarke & Co., the appellants said: “ In this connection we have investigated Messrs. E. H. Clarke & Co., and believe them to be financially responsible and fully capable of carrying out any obligations they assume in the taking over of this business.” Clearly, this was not the utterance of a mere opinion or prophesy. The appellants asserted that they had “ investigated ” E. H. Clarke & Co., and “ believed them to be financi lly responsible ” and “ fully capable of carrying out…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Zabriskie v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
- Bradley v. Seaboard National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Harford v. StonehamNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
3Cited by5 opinions
- Stern Bros. v. New York Edison Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
- Fidelity Funding of California, Inc. v. ReinholdDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1997
- Hudson Rug Refinishing & Cleaning Corp. v. Prime Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1940
- Herz & Lewis, Inc. v. Union BankCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1974
- Samuel W. Hurowitz, Inc. v. SelkinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934