The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-08-27
In all. 400 shares.


In all. -. 400 shares
That maturity of these contracts the 20h 2lst
and oath January S0 the books of transfer were closed
having been shut at the ordinary period for d.
dend and not reopened in consequence oil the discovery
of the Lewis frauds That previously about the 18th
January, 1870 Mr. sampson, Of the firm OF B. j. Co..
called and informed j. Little Co. that they should be
ready to receive the stock according to contract but that
spurious stock of that institution in market they
be genuine Nothing farther took place until the 9th
January when Mr. again called and stated that their
were then ready 10 receive it. Messrs Little Co. replied
that they would deliver the following day. but remark
ed that they could only do SO by Of attorney and
certificate which refused not legal transfer.
From that nothing appears to have occurred between
the parties in relation to this matter until recently when
the books OF transfer having been reopened and Messrs
Little Co. having made the necessary arrangements
titled the brokers' through whom the sales were made Of
their intention deliver the stock On the refusal of
Boorman, Johnston Co. then to receive it, the contro
vesy and the decision Of the arbrators have arisen to-
occurred as to need no recapitulaton
The matters in dispute appear by the admission of b. j.
NARROWLY e:ssnax !" ths n bat no ssxepv
could satisfy the contracts but transfer the day.
on the books kept for that purpose by the Bank its
agents.
This decision your Committee believe to be contrary
to every rule of right which with prorriey be ap
other grounds them that unanimous opinion:
FirstIt is clearly contrary to the rules and regua-
tons of this Board and the practice which has always
verned under them We hold these proper and e
gitimate authority in the premises The Stock and Ex
twenty years The object Of this institution was to fac
ate the purchase and sale Of stocks and other public
curities by creating common point at which the dealers
could meet for the transaction Of such business Since
Its foundation il has numbered amongst its members
OF whom We may be Justly proud, as distinguished for
their enterprise and public spirit and for their high stand
ing the esteem and confidence Of their fellow citizens
For their in the Of business they
have formed code of laws suggested and approved by
long experience and as best adapted to the cases which
arise in that business They intended to be based
the mmutablo principle OF doing unto others would
hC orfIQ Ipclvo in
operationbearing alike buyer and seller, principal
and agent excepting in the penalties which of
and these give additional guarantee the public the
faithful execution of its business These rules
open to the inspection Of any who
through their agency.
Every branch of business has its peculiar laws govern
ing in its appropriate sphere, and claim full uris
dicton for Furthermore, contend that b. j. &
Co. have voluntarily placed themselves under this uris-
dicton They assume contract made by their agents
made at the Board and subject regulations; and they
formally guaranteed its fuflment the extent as
their agents were bound to do If their acknowledged
agents had been accepted and continued principals
could any honorable mind have justified their employers
in subjectng them to the penalties they would have in
curred2 Could B. j. x Co. have refused to protect
them
We further contend that delivery as required by b. D.
Co. was not essential because the powers Of attorney
and certificates rendered by Little Co.. (and necessarily
guaranteed by them in every conceivable respect
as valuable and available the purchasers certificate
in their own name. We cannet imagine any that
could be made Of one and not Of the other. b. j. Co.
detrlment
ing the stock in the form in which 1t was rendered to
them They entitled to nothing more and bound
receive this await the opening Of the books OF transfer
because they knew when they made the contract that the
bank had the to close the books before its maturity
and could exercise the power keep them closed they
did for long period II the bank had not these powers
then the recourse of B. j. Co is evidently against the
bank Again, had Messrs. b. j. s. Co. been DESTROYS to
sell any time after the receipt of this stock in the way
it rendered they could have done so equally we'll and
at the then current market Indeed II the only
ms me-, which they could have adopted 1t in fact the
q Of rtortc Nos
OF books OF transfer renders suitable and the
same time the most expeditions mode of rcalsng this
Further If purchaser does not assume al, the risk of
such contingencies have of late years too frequently
specify exactly the risks which the buy err and those
to which the seller shall be liable and those NON
rated De divided between both7 In what ay does con
tract on time virtually differ from one for CASH. smnlv
and only In the advantage of the Of money TO H.
ment Of interest All the accidents which NAV hefa ~
stock after delivery for cash to the must ne
o. cs ns H, un sha nsy mot be equally while
stance before the stock sold ninety DAYS cre
ait at the price could have been obtained for
cash Could have entered into the calculation of either
party in fixing the price, that any other was
to be gained but the convenience Of the credit which
the interest was allowed as equivalent Suppose that
B. J. Co. had required of J. l.. Co. stipulation that
they should be saved harmless from such contingency
value of the stock would j. L. Co. have agreed at the
same rate or price Could any price have Induced them
to make such bargain And yet this is in reality what
quently happen and as wasvery likely to happen in tie
present case the agent having order purchase on
time should not consider the of the money worth six
per to him, but should prefer advance It
and charge the interest to his principal until in funds
would he be satisfied to be placed position in which
j. l.. & Co. staudl The argumep. will apuly
with equal force every Ia which stools are held a.
collateral for the payment OF other liens upon
them. :.
Your Committee would submit still further that ifbe
case entirely reversed Messrs& Co the purchasers
and b. Co. the sellers what then would have been
the condition OF the partics1 Messrs L. Co would have
been compelled to meet the contract-compcled by the
rules under which they made There could have
been no escape for them. Or had the Bank of Kentucky
succeeded by process Of law in holding the schuylkl
Bank OF Philadelphia responsible for these fraudulent is
sues OF its shares collected the alleged to be due