New-York tribune., 1867-06-18
SUPREME COURT GENERAL TEBl-BefOre Justices
LIONAND, CLCI.L, and WELLS
Bulls AND BEAEs-EIGEIS OF sIOD DkBROKElS AND
TffFlE ttSTONIFs.
Cp,--. ~. Nsllh.a 49, Nm. b. Jsuaon sad another.

trs-.s N. Nsrtl.H alt B sHd another.
ON tlr ,.ih of April. 1855, plantiH deposited with
defendant who Were stock brokers $1,000 ana save tAcn
an order 70 purclasc ter hs account ad rs 10 share
share and sold 10y The defendants by plantf ol0es on
rhe -a,h Of April succeeding at So per shsr 3nose
quantf buf "n thr same d!, laiulih "Iec,t'
ants ;p crmcha-c 100 shares OF the same atock ana also
which ,l,y dit the toIucra ~ - pf snare INC .t
s7g pes -tar THE detndauts cnin mat just prey Gus
% lLr l'tlH-- p.iiu.i Ils'. !. IN N H..
tLcn, tuai 90 cas-, lis margin was htlet' b = li l
th, uHkc, they would lave the right 10 sell the STOCKS
Pur;.h denied ths agreement. and avered that no
Cofyer,at on occurred ojher than his mere giving the
Ordrr on Aid} H. ioli'"lHs' the iuai" e.,t 80 ,i I'M
pln.utih Tln'fu wa eh'lcy eAii,7slgo. vi o'l, nv
defendant, acgr thJt trey sent m letter dehhuiuS
mose narsin containing a.so COPY 9' & nis UZsCUu Z ;n IN
on My 2i tul'"lHe' trl lti"u a.u lt,''u' FL i' 20
Boa and lir tu o. a which prices there deficit In
pinti account of 81 500 n addition 10 the exhaustion
him auolcr -'t 10 tHe croct that the margin must he
supplied or thc stock would De sold out THESE letters
were srut to no 9Nt1all7i' Mhele Ihe phlH'iu o,'a
ai0ualiy camo and whore hr defendants believed mm 10
po,fv may have reached MIA H letter. IL Is admit ted
ibat these letter, did NOT stale the time ana place oI me
Zoe plputiT claims that the amount deposit vim
the %, iusau. u!c .afn OF April was $500 ANA il
mo-. Sold ou without ucti,e go him. thay are liable
10 ,u .r i. highest amount ut which tb, stocks would
fi. tlr custom uf tr .fIcyt 90 make suCA agree
ue.s 80, jlt ihrt claimed I" have inle. ln a idf-ih
Arorhcr gnuo iut question on the hil was we hef me
prpusr notice had been given q" me painh me touit
ruling luIl ilit Nftlfliit7t u lilh Ati'f ''"' 't
iT lived AL Eacl.ir were bound tO send notice go him
h.re of the intended .Jir, unless they served him per
Tg iury found ion tine plaintiff $3.50 and tEe defend.
aut', appeal The appeal brings mp the Whoe .ne'%t "'
claimed Iy the defendants that there is Welrs 9,heo
custom. of which The pauth was bN'' @ ,lsl ~ ~, i i
Win his own funds. can ai any Imt ana "llnou any
notice o the customer II the socA A"'t Ie n'il - U
fb raryIu be mot kept good, sell a. protect huse.
Ttv -o claim that the notice was sufficient Ia form and
L,t,% % a, i if service i The place where in NcV-Yuh.
81 ff.r ia f..f
nrst The plaintiff claims that tie transaction ls
governed by me h"S "i1tlnt 20 ~" III :" t,,,
the plaiun WIS entitled o notice 10 pay ms dth, anu re-
IN, ia .tnrl ouu 10 10 reasonable time t0dO so; 10
notice of the tune and place where me- stocks would nt
sold II ne failed to pay Or redeem; to nave ms sto'A SOFA
rs pledge at public sale o..... .,..
That Tie demand of drmpt.Du was usrihtiej; ihat
thso us no notice o. the time and place col egc ana mat
the service should have been made personally on i me
nuid m admired o vary the legal lights of the parties
.o'' t . ,n,,tr.c and ,i, ,usfoIn cola vary them.
The Court reserved l.- decision
5ir Bennett ior defendant appellant Mr. Nash iof
nIuiuufI. respondent.
P'"'"i sptcf\I TrEM-Before Mr.. Justice D,NiElS
A SINGULAR CASA JUSTICE OF THE slfIlMH t"DhI
OF THIS STATE CHARGED WITH PkOsIhl IN" MS
OFFlCF. AsD ENrEEING INTO toEhiII COY
sPRACY 10 pTlIAUD STOCKHOLDERS N = Rail-
ROAD COMPANY. .,.., ,....... ,.,......t
Es nni lGr,i Adreadack Co. loAr I, EecyeToi
AdoudacL CO.. and John ID i', liea-.r o.. AaL:.@ : 20
This was demurrer 10 pialHtih complaint on
the ground that il does MOI STATE res Sh,ee 10
tutc cause Of action Ihe P,n,m - i. ~ avn m
\ a
$40 shares of the par value of s5l"N ~ .tsl..iie
defendant Is Justice Of the supreme Court M te Ioih
Iudicoi District in tins State. Tic fGiToiu Eyu'-lloh
- nrnieced to run from OrCenleid ~ ut"g" touhtv
t, Socl,t,s IIyrhOr and has been phrue} cohpltled
III, ~ ,e.ses that the company owned HOCO acres OF
land thar 600 had been expended N ne comlIul
TO- odinq bridging acquiring lands sNc 'ia1 ahunl e
stb OF Ocrobcr 1851. the defendant ChSn, aSiee 10
convey IN the company jli6 acres OF ao d" " per acre
en,nuC 10 s69 l3j. $500 10 he paid down. SV7 "h me
10 M Tal,u9ry lsGl; OuefOurth OF the paiduct on
~ of ANIL 1851: another fourth, with interest oh the
,,e suru i,nupid fIOm the ast-ncnion day ON lho
~ 80 T,nvor, 1861: another fourth. WIN interest o thc
,e s1n Itaid from the nstncniioned Jay, on the ~
". f,nory Is: and the residue. and interest iloi iIe
day the lst oi January 1861 lh"t nN
tb ,nr,s M me sale IL The Company iaued 10 nhc ut
,ncuts ps agreed upOu, the agreement shOlO De N"H
10 d. rtinu of Cheney aud, m thar event. an previous
o. o. @,o,,ts shnuld Ice forfeited; that the hrst tmcl
~ 80 was pid but mOo thai Cheney did Goi dNo0
,b 'reersn and hold the $500 as hqmdated damages
ht h1ght I'm action for specific performance and on
e. 5otb M February, 1852 obtained Judgment the de
tnnd,rts answer being a,0udged sham ana false, aud
cnn ont. that the judgment wa. for he tu! amount
~ "a date J4 9A ana that u was turther
od'',0ed that Company should pay Cneney the re-
,inin n.talmentS, with interest, they became duci
that nnon normotOn and belief, the execution issued
,,,,n,, tbe judgments was returned uns6iished
tTe cn1paint further alleges that Sheldon bY the ad
% and direction OF Roshran ana Cheney sold 10 Cheney
M te nronprty OF the Company. in the lands contracted
q, ne ld to n by K0schrans ANA Cheney for Slt0 Rose
rras was Vgeseu " the Saie eg1 udyat0 ~ kEqm Tie