New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-07-19

to sell does u 4. insisted he instantly becomes ocr
snd liable to tho brokes monthly ts1 In addition 70 the
view On tho cotsry we satisfied the tanker
m Lo,h by hv express terms well by necessary mpca
ION snnawered TO carry She business authorized under
m license to It's practical and us,ui results That when be
i. norzed 10 eud advance monsy stoek bends So
he ha tue right Of default IN the reDaJmsn to con
vert the security by way Of rcubusemenOud
yer outfrrssd 10 receive stocks boBd 49, ior sale
nay sci the same without ID either 1stanec mlknl 1iseh
Tse United states agt Fisk ., al decided term
carried tic urueges be banker f beyond the
cuse for 1. Was held tlst he could purchase and sell
socks bonds &C. for hims, snd his ogn account uDder
hs lcensea business specified in the definition OF
banker That case in eject dee aed na any business Wnch
banker could carry such. did NOT .e "l'An tie YIN
The case Of the plaintiff rs forth In tho fouth
graph OF the bin. substance as follows; Thai IA carry
ing er business as bankers they purchase Stocks DonG
Sc for otlers but make tie purchases IN he own nae
ard advance their own money and take he IN
and hold the stocks sceaFy or repayment ty
tn persons tr WHOM purchased; ana on rceisn hleD r.
payment interest and customary charges delivers the ca
oonds &C. as per aereemeno IN default Of repayment
they sell tuc same 10 reimburse themsciYes
This business is not only outside the business OF banker
defined by The act but directly within tls Of iF0-
ker. and subject 20 the tax under tie g9h section.
But, II Is urged that the Plaintiffs eny Of their dealngs
10 stocks bonds &C. are brought within tbe category OF Bsi
a0itg bnsias Brokers, their whole business bakers,
thereby brought within IT, and subjected Ae broken
and hs extraordinary Proposition sspPsed 10 be decided II
Tho ninth subdivision o. a5g, declaring who sbnn be
b.. ker Is follows: Every person firm, company sc.
a. broker 10 Otate purchases saes Of stocks bonds
&C. ali e regarded broker Tic exception takes the
Dii Tue tlte.olt VI oADAhi, "A ~
"hil "-' Aie'iueu ~ iao '~.1P'Ou 49, t.fi -,
any person lc.dng heense "a Ua4seF sha>Hot be r.
tnat ho may do bus.pess as q broker under his
license baker But, surely there d nothing in he pro
broke 90 be carried under the banker license that suggest
G es or ur rye a bs & 20 y, ' so a. subject
III his delnel - the brokers' tax us lr snd EallIa
inference would - b. the other way namey that ne
broker gsd the banker Bat We hpppose the reason
J. aad proper cusiOp - that although tlc license o the
rr DIN 10 othe business OF broker whoa, fdr
fl4t business,
regarded bsker and mast pay she brokers' tax
ra We think 10 no only natural conclusion and fair le
eject from n pioyisoas q Inv referred IL butte
arsed WI be seen - the !saguaee Of ne s1il sector
Imposing brokers' ~ follows; That al broSers
ana bos GOsg 70.ss shall be subject y pay me
o'ioving duties tlc clearly enough implying that the
banker beside carrying business also engage
IN business broker; but u such case and a. respects the
hu mess dOre broker be aus pas ne lax imposed Ofss
AID above what he ha. already paid as banker.
States sgt Fish, az and stated in tie opinion in few
words . Vow a bankef" says 81. Jusee-GreF, "psys e
much higher Than broker and is 2ermed to prose
cute carry the brsncss profession Of broker with
paYrg any further license; but u lie prefers lie may not
combine that business viii lis avn
Without pursuing the further injunction mus. Issue
u tne settlement OF this order Is DO referred to
jobs Burnett AMI WIN. " Evasts for PLAINTIFF s. G.
0'D'''' Lewis E,Sste1 1t n. est Sheridan SHOOK
NILSSON &. J.-Inere Is one question II this case
not involved OF CLARK and agt Gilbert and
is whether not banker. who purchase AID sA stocks,
nds Sc for othcrs and therefore. falls wi hn tue category
OF banker doing basiness bToser bat who sells the
stocks bonds &c throuea the Intervention Of broker =
liable pay brokers' nndef section 49, Tie arguments
i that the saes has already been paid by tho
broker o. and who solut mane them As Tins case
came before the short notice. and al the ebs OF he
sitting ge will reargument the point snd At the
sane explanation by affidavit By either party a. 70
the and conducting the business linus cnmed
TO be exempt from the tx.
Larrqaes s. Baldwin plaintiffs; S. G. Courtney for de
fendaLL
NELSON, G. J.-1he opinion in the case Of l.. I.
CLARK ct ~ ert bert and Slo0 dlsposes Of ais case
Tho Iufis bankers. and dusnes such oy receiV
Ing stock bonds hnd by lending and adIanc
money stuck bonds and N default Of repay meni se
the same Aud Also purchase and sell stocks bonds &C. on
their account and on commission, or i)r others
Thov also purchase and sell stocks bonds &C. Tor Others
under stpgatoDs % risk losses and PROFITS when
Is the business broker and the sales subject to the broker
above referred 20. - . -
Edgar T. Brown and ExJGdee Allen for Plaintiffs S g.
Courtney for defendants.
SUPERIOR COURT-SPEcAL TrRk-JULY H.-Before
Justice hCCUHs.
DECISIONS.
Kaufman Hirsch agt Lyman Joseph Motion denied with
fl0
Lepmar Wolf agt Same. Same decision.
In re Charles Smith, petitioner. discharged.