Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

77 Misc. 125

Shiel v. Stoneham

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · decided 1912-06-15

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment rendered against him in favor of defendants on their counterclaim in the Municipal Court of the city of ¡New York, borough of the Bronx, second district.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1930

1 state decisions

Relies on Caswell v. . Putnam · Taussig v. . Hart

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1912-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bijub, J.

¶1I concur for reversal of the judgment which in effect sustained defendants’ counterclaim, on the ground that it sufficiently appears that defendants did not keep at all times on hand or under their control either the particular shares purchased for their customer or an equal amount *129of other shares of the same kind and have them in such a situation that the customer on paying the amount due him thereon could at any time obtain them.” Taussig v. Hart, 58 N. Y. 425, 429; Helm v. Ennis, 109 App. Div. 42, 44; Caswell v. Putnam, 120 N. Y. 153; Dos Passes Stock B. (2d ed.) 257. The fact, if it be true, that defendants had plaintiff’s stock or its equivalent in Toronto or Salt Lake City does not satisfy this requirement.

¶2Plaintiff appeals only from so much of the judgment as sustains defendants’ counterclaim.

¶3Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs, to appellant to abide event.

/77/misc/125 · .json · Public domain