New-York tribune., 1867-03-15

Nicholas Mccormick ct al agt Robert II. ober ct al
Annie ISWIer. by her guardian, &c. agt Joseph IT,
Beams-Complaint set aside and action dismissed WIN
costa.
GENERAL TERM-Before ROBERTSON, Oh. j., MoNELL ana
MCCUSS.
DECISIONS.
Myron IT. Strong agt. JAS X. Place-Iudgment re-
versed and order OF reference annuued or he" tla
with costs to abide event. - -. ,, =,
Opinion by Robertson, Gu; j. Concurf'ns opinion W
sUPREME COURT-GESERAL TRRN-sEcoND DISTRICT
THE GREAT HARLEM CORNER.
John D. Bort ag. Edward Hartman and Lawrence Jerome
This action was tried before Judge Lott, IN BTook.
lyn something more than year ago Inc plaihuu met
sSi a the Eycnne Exchange held in the basement
OF the Ffthaye Hotel and wished him to buy ana carry
Harlem steck for him An arrangement was made Dy
which the defendants, who stock brokers' were 10
purchase and hold the stock the plaintiff 70 protect them
by margin TO pay them interest on advances and com
MISSION with the right % the defendants 10 sen When
they cho on March & they 9gTGhaSed S S sars tos
what claimed 10 have been an unauthorized sale OF
a the the an n e sSeS Addison l. e. at
ants office then director OF the Harlem Road
ysed that il had no real value and should be sold The
stock had meantime fallen s1 ,S 10 rSn in pn maasSs
wholly exhausted but he owed defendants on the Stock
ment or security The plaintiff stated he unable to
furnish money! he offered soo bonds and deco OF Bul
io property fses sp Gssndsps SSIe ded to have no real
value but the end they were not executed ON maseh
81 1864, the plainU aitfr nlH conNeINdtloh
thought best The defendants and their clerks teslted
that this direction given before IL o'clock that Mr
Jerome Immediately went out within half hour SOLD the
stock 80 ~ only leave deficiency against the deieh-
ant ~ s22 w. and that before o'clock notice OF the sale
was srnt To plaintiffs office. Just at this time was deye
oped great corner In Harlem Tie plntln elt Town
nuence OF the corner the stock had advanced and he
plnnt insisted he entitled To hold te deIendants
Tor his Margin aud the profit 10 him a. the highest price
reached by the stock TO the ula slainlHg ohat [ on
March 81. 1854 erleayng VITA the delshah m te Opo
gI,t. Afrfp
one Daniel W. Van Aernam went TO the defendants saw
Mr.. Jerome; told him hs plaintiff cognteFindnaedh @ hoS s
10 the stock Till the plantiifs return on Aprli lsCi
osiock When he saH Mr. Jerome This was positively
The ease was tried in November 1885, before Judge Lott.
who charged that the plaintiff might mig hSid the m rs
trial r. gardess Of the effect OF the corner That II
plaintiff did not keep his margins good the defendants
had the right se the stock after demand on notice
10 him OF the sale, either Of the four places where IL
proved stocks were then usually sold, the Regular
Board. open Board Street or Evening Exchange, put
that not under the option Of the plaintiff could they
sell at any other place.
before counermand ~ the authority, the defendants
were liable, but that otherwise they were. though
Tho jury found verdict for the plaintiff Tor ,3A
An appeal was taken, which wHs argued IN November
1866 The Court have now reversed the Judgment. The
following are the opinions OF the two Judges.
scRuGHAN il think the learned Judge erred in charg
ing that II the couneand received before the sale
OF the stock then restored the parties TO their original
rights before the authority was given. ana t was the
TO make demand on the plaintiff TO make good his
margin and In Of default Ia give him notice OF the
given the plaintiff was In default His margin short
and the defendants had required him To make Il good
IL evidence sufficient to sustain conclusion that be
did by securities As long the plaintiff kept his
margin good. the power OF the defendants TO sell was
merely conditional and could not be exercised without
his consent but upon his failing 10 make up his margin
became absolute The requisiton OF notice OF the time
and place Of sale TO the plaintiff not condition OF
al sulp "A "a rpla
was the grant Of new or extended power TO wit: the
for their advances, and WIS OF benefit 10 them In
o power oSpS w an interest a and TT Ss There fT
yocabe. At the time IL given thesdefendaDts had
aud place OF sale TO the plaintiff and consta but
that they would then have given such notice II he had
corded the same length OF time would be required TO
eapso between the notice and sale that would be required
20 make the notice reasonable given at the time OF the
consent and III revocation might be TO prejudice the de
PENDANTS by Obng them 10 carry the stock longer than
they might otherwise have done As tho stock was OF n
certain and fucuatng value their security might have
placed IN the condlon IN which they were before
the consent, for the time which elapsed between II
aud the attempted revocation could not be restored TO
them As the plaintiff had after demand failed to per
form his part OF the contract the defendants owed hlm
OF the sale and 10 sell fy and after such notice he
would have rights in respect to the property except
TO redeem before sale. His consent 10 sale Was equya-
lent 10 notice and his rights different after the
one than after the other The Judgment should be re-
yersed and new trial ordered.
BARSARD il think that the charge 10 the Jury that
the agreement testified 10 by Jerome did not do away
with tho necessity OF notice OF the time and place OF sale
Of the stock was erroneous The stock subject TO
large fluctuations. t part Of the contract that for
this the margin should be made double the usual
steady dividend paying stocks, with the right To
sell when the defendants chose" The defendants were
required by plaintiff 10 tumble 10 out" whenever they
saw anything wrong about H. under this contract the
defendants bought 400 shares and sold the same at an
advance, without notice OF time place OF sale which
was cheerully assented 10 by the plaintiff The stock IN
question was directed 10 be purchased for plaintiff soon
after this sale. The defendants had the power and IL
was the wish Of the plaintiff that they should sell at once
any thing occurred" and II the defendants Thought
BEST Under contract In these terms and referring 10
stocks like the In question notice OF time and place
OF the sale would be ridiculous aud mpraccable Tho
defendants had the right TO sell the stocks without notice
Of sale, In the usual way such sales made CMilken
ngt. Dehon, "a n " Rep, 36lJ The Judge then holds
the exclusion OF certain testimony To have been
ous, and concludes To the effect his colleague
MI John l.. Parsons Tor defendant; Mr. j. Emott for
plaintiff