Case ID: ny-super-ct_21/html/0689-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Clark v. Meigs.
    It was decided in this case that in an action against brokers having purchased stock for plaintiff to be delivered at his option, to recover damages for sell- ■ ing it against his instructions, the complaint need not allege that the plaintiff made a demand, and tender of the price.
    It is the broker’s duty to keep the stock on hand.
    Alleging that defendants sold the stock imports that they delivered it
    
    (Before Hoffman, Woodruff and White, JJ.)
    Heard at General Term;
    July, 1861.
   See the points decided in the index to this volume, under the title “Pleadings—Complaint.”

See the appeal reported at length with the opinion of the Court in 13 Abb. Pr. R., 467 ; also in 22 How. Pr. R., 340 ; reversing the decision at Special Term, which is reported in 12 Abb. Pr. R., 267 ; and in 21 How. Pr., 187.