The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-05-29
LAW Intelligence.

HARLEM RAILROAD CAsE.-SuPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
Henry G.. Sfebbins rs. Louis Leo Voy-This was an
action Of assumpst brought recover from the de-
PENDANT the of Sl5i2 0S, paid by the plaintiff as
difference on 3z5 of Harlem Railroad stock, al
leg ed to have bought by him on the defendant
order account at sixty days buyers option ana
taken by him at maturity Thep purchase was made
At the trial in the Court of Common Pleas 1t appear
ed from the testimony Of several OF the witnesses that
the parties from whom the plaintiff alleged that he
had purchased 800 Of the shares In question: had other
contracs sales and purchases of shares In the same
stock during the sixty days. and the defendant con-
/, nded that upon the plaintiff to show,
In take the out OF the act OF
New York that these parties had all the shares neces
sary meet oil If their contracts OF sale In THIS Stock
including the contract in question. The presiding
judge ruled this point in favor Of the defendant. .
With regard to the remaining twenty-five shares, 1t
appeared the contract for them matured on Sun
day in which by the rules Of the board OF brokers
of New York where the purchases alleged to have
been made IL would fail due the Saturday previous
The defendant contended that he was not bound oy
such rules not being member Of the board but that
he had at conf law. the whole Of Monday in which
TO meet his engagements and that this action having
been commenced that day was premsturely brought
ms TO these shares This point also ruled by the
pres ding Judge In favor OF the defendant,
The Jury under the ruling Of the court found their
for the defendant and the case came before the
Supreme Court. upon exceptions to such ruling.
Wupr j., delivered the opinion Of the Court. He
said that the first ruling the first question was
whether this came within the provisions Of the
-jobbipg acts OF New York; and the second was
upon whom the burden Of proof to show that the
vendors bad not sufficient shares Of the said stock to
all their contracts Of sale in It, The he said,
did come within the provisions of that act. The vender
hold the stock which he has contracted to SELL
free from all other obligations As to the burden OF
proof where a contract In writing to pay sum Oh
money aud imported consideration on the face o. ~,
" the des ndapt would avail himself OF aeenoe Oh IL
legality the burden OF proof on him VINO &c. up u
defence But this was u different case. nc pn'nin
must here chow legs contract my INV aet,eS S
that the vender should be the owner OF tue .ock anu
this part ef his contract and must oe pro'eu ny
him .x..r... .o..-..,
AS TO the second ruling he said that II the contract
matured on Sunday, the defendant had the whole OF
IN, following Monday perform 1t In and the action
Is,"aht TOO soon The contract was made in
Sow So,t and must therefore be governed by the rule
,i In ihat State This rule, in reference To chooses
~ an,inn falling due on Sunday, not uniform, but
xse fuIly settled in New York GO w. 20( The
erc,utio,s were therefore overrulcd, and Judgment
MI be entered for the defendant on the verdict
Boston .ifios, May %