Case Name: Charles P. Currie and others, Appellants, v. Cumberland G. White, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1871-09-05
Citations: 45 N.Y. 822
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles P. Currie and others, Appellants, v. Cumberland G. White, Respondent.
Judges: Church, Ch. J., Grover, Andrews and Peokham, JJ., concur with Rapadlo, J. Allen and Folger,’ JJ., for affirmance.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 822–846

Head Matter:
Charles P. Currie and others, Appellants, v. Cumberland G. White, Respondent.
A contract for the purchase and sale of shares of the stock of a railroad corporation, at a specified price, “ payable and deliverable, seller’s option, in this year, with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum,” effects a sale in presentí, the vendor becoming a quasi trustee for the purchaser, and the latter is entitled to all dividends accruing on such shares thereafter.
When the vendor gives notice, within the time, of his option'to deliver, the rights of the parties become the same as though the time of delivery named by him had been specified in the original contract. •
If the purchaser, pursuant to such notice, at the time named therein, offers and is ready to take and pay for the stock, and the vendor neglects to deliver or offer to deliver, a tender of the money is not necessary, as payment and delivery are to be simultaneous.
Assuming the power of the directors of a corporation to increase its capital stock, and to require the deposit or payment of money by subscribers to the new stock, such vendor is not hound to advance his own money for the purpose of preserving the right to the new shares which attached to the shares so sold. Unless the purchaser provides him with the means, he cannot claim that it is the fault of the vendor, that the stock purchased has not been increased.
If the purchaser makes distinct and separate demands, one for the shares purchased, with dividends accrued thereon, the other for the additional shares of new stock, he may recover the subject of the former demand, although not entitled to that of the latter. (Alleh and Folgeb, JJ., centra.')
(Argued April 21st;
decided September 5th, 1871.)
Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of Eew York, affirming a judgment of the Special Term dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiffs and the defendant were stock brokers in the city of ETew York. Upon the 18th day of February, 1867, they entered into an agreement with each other, and executed as evidence thereof the following instruments:
¡New Yobk, 18th Feb., 1867.
(1,000 shares.)
We have purchased of C. G-. White one thousand (1,000) shares of the capital stock of the Hudson ¡River ¡R. ¡R., at one hundred and twenty-eight per cent, payable and deliverable, sellers’ option, in this year (1867), with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum; either party having the right to call, from time to time, for deposits, to meet the fluctuations of the market.
CURRIE, MARTIN & GO.
[10 Cent Stamp.]
New Yobk, Feb. 18, 1867.
(1,000 shares.)
I have sold to Currie Martin & Co. one thousand shares of the capital stock of the Hudson River Railroad Company, at one hundred and twenty-eight per cent, payable and deliverable, sellers’ option, in this year, with interest át the rate of six per cent per annum; either party having the right to call, from time to time, for deposits to meet the fluctuations of the market.
C. G-. WHITE.
[10 Cent Stamp.]
On the 15th day of April, 1867, the Hudson River Railroad Company declared a cash dividend of four dollars per share upon the capital stock of said company, as it stood on the 18th day of February, 1867. And on the 15th day of October, 1867, declared another cash dividend of four dollars per share upon the same amount of capital stock.
These dividends were paid to the holders of stock on the 18th day of February, and on the 15th day of October, 1867, respectively.
On the 1st day of April, 1867, the board of directors of the Hudson River Railroad Company passed the following preamble and resolutions (among others):
Whereas, The stockholders of the company, at a meeting of such stockholders, called by the directors of the company, in the manner required by law, and held at the office of the company, on the 30th day of March last, did, with the concurrence of more than two-thirds in amount of a,11 its stockholders, authorize and sanction the increase of the capital stock of the company, to the amount of thirteen millions nine hundred and thirty-seven thousand and four hundred dollars; therefore,
Resolved, That the capital stock of the company be, and the same is hereby increased to the amount of thirteen millions nine hundred and thirty-seven thousand and four hundred dollars.
Resol/ved, That the stock transfer books of this company be closed on the 10th day of April inst., and that the persons or parties in whose names stock shall be standing on that day shall severally, on or before the 15th day of April inst., be entitled to subscribe, at the office of the company, Mo. 270 West Thirtieth street, in the city of Mew York, for an equal amount of additional stock; that the price of the additional stock shall be fifty dollars per share, payable as follows (specifying days and amounts) :
That on the 15th day of October next, all installments being paid, full paid stock shall be issued.
Resol/ved, That where parties desire, for their own convenience, to anticipate payments, their money for any number of installments will be received, but no interest will in any case be allowed, nor will the stock be issued until the 15th day of October next.
Resolved, That stockholders failing to subscribe on or before the 15th day of .April inst., or neglecting to pay their several installments as they severally become due, will lose all right to the additional stock, and will be deemed to have abandoned their subscriptions.
Resolved, That where parties desire to receive full stock on the 15th day of April inst., they may do so by paying fifty- four dollars per share at the time of making their subscriptions.
On the 8th day of April, 1867, the plaintiffs sent to the defendant a notice, of which the following is a copy:
Hew Yobk, April 8th, 1867.
C. G. White, Esq. :
Dear Sir.—On the 18th February last we purchased from you 1,000 shares of Hudson River Railroad Company stock, at 128 per cent, sellers’ option this year. You will please take notice that we elect to subscribe for the additional stock, as provided in the resolutions of the company, at their meeting on the 1st April inst., and that we look to you for the same.
Very respectfully,
CURRIE, MARTIR & CO.
But the notice was not received by the defendant until between four and five o’clock on the afternoon of the 10th day of April, 1867, when it was too late to become a stockholder on the books of the company or to subscribe for the additional stock. The plaintiffs never furnished the defendant with the means of subscribing for such additional stock. Upon the 18th of December, 1867, the defendant served upon the plaintiffs the following notice:
Rew Yobk, December 18,1867.
Messes. Cubbie, Mabtih & Co.:
I will deliver you to-morrow 1,000 shares Hudson railroad'stock on my contract, February 18th, seller this year, at $128 per share.
Respectfully,
C. G. WHITE.
And upon the 19th he went with the 1,000 shares of stock to the plaintiffs’ office and handed them the following computation of the purchase-price:
Chebie, Habtht & Co.: To 0. Q. White.
February 18th, 1,000 Hudson, $128 ........ $128 >000 00
10 mo. and 1 day int., 6 per cent .. 6)421 33
$134,421 33
Certified check.
The plaintiffs handed Hr. White the following notices, which they had already drawn:
Hew Yobk, December 19th, 1867.
He. C. G-. White:
We will accept the 1,000 shares Hudson railroad stock you propose to deliver to us to-day, and pay you therefor the sum stated in your account, $134,421.33, and we demand of you the cash dividends thereon and interest.
Respectfully,
CHRRIE, HARTIH & CO,
Hew Yobk, December 19th, 1867.
He. C. G. White:
We require you to deliver to us, under your contract, dated 18th February, 1867, a second 1,000 shares of Hudson railroad stock, the portion of the new issue of stock by said company, on their increase of capital in April, 1867, accruing to the owner and holder of the 1,000 shares mentioned in your said contract. We tender to you the price at which said new stock was issued, with interest, $56,232, and demand and claim from you the delivery of said 1,000 shares, and the cash dividends, if any, that have been made thereon.
Yours,
CURRIE, HARTIH & CO.
Whereupon White went away (without anything further being done) to consult counsel as to the legal effect of the notices, and nothing further transpired except the receipt of an additional notice, as follows:
Mb. C. Gf. White :
Sir.—Our checks for $134,421.33 and $56,232 have been ready for you since they were tendered you, with our two notices relative to our Hudson river contract, on the 19th inst. You then said you were not ready to give an answer, but would see about it. We are ready to do what we offered and tendered in our notices and renew our notices, but suppose your silence is equivalent to your refusal to comply with them.
Tours, etc.,
CURRIE, MARTIR & CO.
Hew York, December 31,1867.
The case below is reported, 1 Sweeny, 166.
William R. Martin, for the appellants,
cited Couturier v. Hastie (5 H. Lds. Cas., 673); 1 Pars, on Cont., pp. 102, 103; 2 Story on Cont., §§ 1023-1028); Rensselaer Fac’y v. Reid (5 Cow., 587); Van Rensselaer v. Jewett (2 Coms., 140); Radway v. Briggs (37 N. Y., 256); Champernoun v. Brooke (3 Cl. & Pin., 4); Sugd. V. & P., 806, 819; Palmerston v. Turner (33 Beav., 525); Webster v. Donaldson (34 id., 451); Williams v. Glenton (id., 528); Regents Canal Co. v. Ware (23 id., 575); Stewart v. Lawson (3 Sm. & Gif., 307); Courtney v. Ferrers (1 Sim., 137); Terry v. Wheeler (25 N. Y., 520); Anson v. Towgood (1 Jac. & W., 617); Vesey v. Elwood (3 Dr. & War., 74); Kimbody v. Tew (5 Irish R. Eq., 389) Davy v. Barber (2 Atkins., 490); Ackland v. Gaisford (2 Mad., 28); Small v. Atwood (3 You. & Coll., 105); Mechanics’ Banking Association v. Spring Valley Co. (25 Barb., 419); Nelson v. Eaton (26 N. Y., 411); Totterdell v. Fareham Co. (1 L. R. C. P., 674); Garste v. Lees (3 H. & C., 558); Bateman v. Porter (15 Wend., 638); Warren v. Mains (7 John., 477); Crist v. Armour (34 Barb., 378); Wallis v. Glynn (19 Ves., 281); Harding v. Davis (2 Car. & P., 77); Slingerland v. Morse (8 John., 370); Bellinger v. Kitts (6 Barb., 281); Stone v. Sprague (20 id., 514); Sears v. Conover (34 id., 330); Vanpell v. Woodward (2 Sand. Ch., 145); Dana v. Fidler (1 E. D. Smith, 480); Wheeler v. Garcia (40 N. Y., 586).
George C. Ba/rreit, for the respondent.
The contract between the parties was executory and not executed. (1 Story on Com., §§ 18, 19; Russell v. Nicoll, 2 Wend., 112; Outwater v. Dodge, 7 Cow., 85; Ward v. Shaw, 7 Wend., 404; McDonald v. Hewitt, 15 John., 349; Story on Sales, §§ 231, 232, 296; Boyd v. Siffkin, 2 Camp., 326; 1 Par. on Con., 441, 442; 438, 439; Goode v. Langley, 7 Barn. & C., 26; 2 Kent., 468, note, 496; Clarke v. Spence, 4 Ad. & El., 448; Bell on Sales, 12; Hanson v. Meyer, 6 East, 614; Simmons v. Swift, 5 B. & C., 857; Joyce v. Adams, 4 Seld., 291; Benedict v. Field, 16 N. Y., 595, 597; Baker v. Bourcicault, 1 Daly, 24; Russell v. Minor, 22 Wend., 664, 671; Chapman v. Lathrop, 6 Cow., 110; Decker v. Farniss, 3 Duer, 316; 4 Kern., 615; Kelly v. Upton, 5 Duer, 336; Lester v. Jewett, 1 Kern., 454; Levin v. Smith, 1 Denio, 573; Black v. Weble, 20 Ohio, 304; Stanton v. Small, 3 Sandf., 230; Turner v. Thornton, 1 Com. Ben., 385.) Where the delivery of goods sold, and payment, are to be contemporaneous acts, the property, until such payment and delivery, remains in the seller. (Bussey v. Barnett, 9 M. & W., 312; Bishop v. Shillits, 2 B. & Ald., 329, n.; Palmer v. Hand, 13 John., 434; Lupin v. Marie, 6 Wend., 77; Laidler v. Burlinson, 2 M. & W., 602.) On the question of performance. (Weld v. Hadley, 1 N. Hamp., 295; Des Arts v. Leggett, 16 N. Y., 590.) On the question of tender. (Roosevelt v. Bull’s Head Bk., 45 Barb., 583; Sanford v. Buckley, 30 Conn., 344; Wood v. Hitchcock, 20 Wend., 47; Breed v. Hurd, 6 Pick., 356; Kortright v. Cady, 21 N. Y., 343; Leatherdale v. Sweepstone, 3 Car. & P., 342; Simmons v. 3 Esp. R., 91; Heplum v. Auld, 1 Cranch., 321; Bateman, v. Poole, 15 Wend., 637; Hornley v. Cramer, 12 How., 490; Strong v. Blake, 46 Barb., 227.)

Opinion:
Batallo, J.
By a stock contract such as this, the seller of shares deliverable at a future time assumes to have them, and to make a present sale of them, and to hold them for the benefit of the purchaser until delivery. The language of the contract imports a sale in resentí, and charges the purchaser with interest on the purchase-money, from the time of the sale to the time of delivery. If the seller, for speculative purposes, takes the chances of acquiring the shares in time for delivery, or if, having the shares at the time of sale, he deals with them till the time for delivery, he acts at his own risk. The purchaser cannot know whether the seller has the shares or not, nor do his rights depend upon that fact. They are the same as if the seller had the shares on hand, which he pretends to sell, and made a present sale of them, postponing simply the actual delivery, and keeping them on hand in the mean time. On this theory the purchaser pays interest on the purchase-money. He is, therefore, entitled to dividends accruing between the sale and the delivery. The plaintiff's right to these dividends seems to have been conceded by the defendant, at the interview of the 19th December. By the notice of December 18th, the defendant exercised his option as to the time of delivery, and appointed the 19th for that purpose. The time for delivery then became fixed, and the rights of the parties were the same as if the 19th of December had been appointed by the original contract for the delivery of the stock. On that day the plaintiff offered to the defendant, in writing, to take and pay for the 1,000 shares of original stock, and demanded the dividends thereon. The defendant's conduct in taking away this written offer and the stock, and not returning any answer to the offer, was equivalent to a refusal to perform. His previous statement, that he would deliver the stock and allow the dividends, was nullified by his subsequent conduct, in going away without offering the stock, and not returning any answer to the written proposition.
The plaintiff's offer, on the 19th, to take and pay for the original 1,000 shares, was absolute, and entirely separate from his further demand for the 1,000 shares of additional stock. He did not make the delivery of the latter shares a condition of accepting and paying for the original shares. He evidently designed to perform as to the original shares, and still reserve his claim for the additional stock, but to beep the two subjects distinct and separate. It may be that he could not have accomplished this purpose, and that if he had accepted the ¿original shares, with their dividends, he would have been barred from any further claim under the contract. He took his chances on that question, but made no reservation or condition which impaired the validity of his offer to perform as to the 1,000 original shares.
A tender of the money was not necessary; the payment and delivery were to be simultaneous. The offer and readiness to pay were sufficient, and by failing to respond to that offer the defendant dispensed with the necessity of a formal tender. The plaintiff showed that he was ready to pay, having made an arrangement with his bank to certify his cheek for the required amount on that day, and having prepared the check at the time of making the offer, for the precise amount of the statement furnished by defendant. If the defendant had said that he would deliver the stock on payment of the money, then it would have been necessary to tender it; but instead of that, he said he would go and consult his lawyer, and he went away, taking the stock with him, and'did not return or send any answer. This constituted a refusal to perform.
I think the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the difference between the contract price and interest and the market value of the 1,000 shares of stock on the 19th of December, with the two dividends thereon. As to the claim for the additional stock, I concur in the conclusions of my learned brother Folger.
I think the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, unless the defendant shall consent to a judgment for' the proper amount to cover the claim for the non-delivery of the original 1,000 shares and cash dividends.