Doherty v. Bartlett, 3052.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | BINGHAM and MORTON, Circuit , and PETERS |
| Citation | 83 F.2d 259 |
| Parties | DOHERTY v. BARTLETT et al. |
| Docket Number | No. 3052.,3052. |
| Decision Date | 10 March 1936 |
83 F.2d 259 (1936)
DOHERTY
v.
BARTLETT et al.
No. 3052.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
March 10, 1936.
Robert J. Peaslee, of Concord, N. H., Robert G. Dodge, of Boston, Mass., and Franklin Hollis, of Concord, N. H., for petitioner.
Frank J. Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Louis Monarch and Carlton Fox, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before BINGHAM and MORTON, Circuit Judges, and PETERS, District Judge.
BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
The defendant has presented a motion for rehearing. The ground of the motion is that this court, in its opinion, did not state whether or not it overruled its prior decision in Doherty v. McAuliffe (C.C.A.) 74 F.(2d) 800, 803. The reason is not far to seek.
In Doherty v. McAuliffe this court had under consideration the construction and application of section 8 of chapter 110A of the General Laws of Massachusetts (Ter.Ed.), and section 15 of that chapter. Section 8 prohibited a registered dealer from selling securities in that state on "an instalment or partial payment plan contract except as such plan is approved by the commission," and section 15 of the act imposed a penalty of fine and imprisonment for violation of section 8. In applying these provisions of law, and following the decision of the Massachusetts court in Bowditch v. New England Mutual Life Ins. Co., 141 Mass. 292, 4 N.E. 798, 55 Am.Rep. 474, it was held that: "Installment contracts made in violation of section 8 may be voidable by the buyer while executory, but we do not think it was intended that they should be void, nor that, after they have been fully performed, there is any right to rescind."
In the present case, in suits arising in the New Hampshire district, we have had under consideration section 2 of chapter 202 of the Laws of 1917 prohibiting a salesman of a registered dealer from selling or offering for sale in that state securities, unless registered as a salesman of such dealer, and section 12 of that chapter imposing a penalty of fine or imprisonment or both in case of a violation of section 2. And, following the decisions of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire in construing the provisions of this identical act (Karamanou v. H. V. Greene Company, 80 N.H. 420, 124 A. 373, 374; Kenalos v. H. V. Greene Company, 81 N.H. 426, 128 A. 335), we held that a contract of sale of securities made in New Hampshire by an unlicensed agent of the defendant was void.
In the Karamanou Case the action arose on a demurrer to a declaration. The declaration alleged that the defendant, on October 22, 1918, had received from the insurance commissioner, acting under chapter 202 of the Session Laws of 1917, a license to sell certain securities; that on the 19th day of April, 1919, the commissioner had canceled the license of the defendant and notified it to that effect, yet the defendant thereafterwards "sold to the plaintiff certain certificates for the purchase of stock" to the plaintiff's damage. Section 9 of the act gave the commissioner authority to revoke a dealer's registration "in case of violation of any provision of this act"; and section 8 of the act, while it did not require as a condition precedent to the sale of securities by a registered dealer that he should first obtain the permission of the commissioner to sell any particular stock, it did authorize the commissioner to require the dealer to file with him a list of securities which he was offering or about to offer for sale, and if, after examination, he was of the opinion that the securities or any of them were of a "character that there is a serious financial danger...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manchester Bank v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., Civ. No. 78-68-D.
...of sales of securities except by a registered dealer or salesman. Doherty v. Bartlett, 81 F.2d 920, 927 (C.C.A. 1), rehearing denied, 83 F.2d 259, cert. denied, 298 U.S. 676, 56 S.Ct. 941, 80 L.Ed. 1398 (1936). The New Hampshire courts have not as yet expounded on the issue of whether the l......
-
Stern v. National City Co.
...where the insurer without a license illegally solicited the same in Minnesota. Bartlett v. Doherty, 1 Cir., 81 F.2d 920, on rehearing 83 F.2d 259; Commissioner of Banks v. Chase Securities Corp., Mass., 10 N.E.2d 472. That the security involved required registration under the Minnesota Blue......
-
In re Arsenault, Bankruptcy No. 93-3060-JEY. Adv. No. 93-1174-JEY.
...line of similar case decisions in New Hampshire, were examined by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Doherty v. Bartlett, 83 F.2d 259 (1936) noting (at pages 260-261) the In New Hampshire from the earliest time contracts or acts entering into contracts prohibited by statute subje......
-
In re Huguenot Pub. Co., 342.
...to pay the balance of $14,500 on or before April 5, 1935. He failed to make the payment, and on April 15, 1935, was notified in writing 83 F.2d 259 by the attorney for the trustee that the latter would hold him liable for all damage sustained by reason of his failure to comply with the term......
-
Manchester Bank v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., Civ. No. 78-68-D.
...of sales of securities except by a registered dealer or salesman. Doherty v. Bartlett, 81 F.2d 920, 927 (C.C.A. 1), rehearing denied, 83 F.2d 259, cert. denied, 298 U.S. 676, 56 S.Ct. 941, 80 L.Ed. 1398 (1936). The New Hampshire courts have not as yet expounded on the issue of whether the l......
-
Stern v. National City Co.
...where the insurer without a license illegally solicited the same in Minnesota. Bartlett v. Doherty, 1 Cir., 81 F.2d 920, on rehearing 83 F.2d 259; Commissioner of Banks v. Chase Securities Corp., Mass., 10 N.E.2d 472. That the security involved required registration under the Minnesota Blue......
-
In re Arsenault, Bankruptcy No. 93-3060-JEY. Adv. No. 93-1174-JEY.
...line of similar case decisions in New Hampshire, were examined by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Doherty v. Bartlett, 83 F.2d 259 (1936) noting (at pages 260-261) the In New Hampshire from the earliest time contracts or acts entering into contracts prohibited by statute subje......
-
In re Huguenot Pub. Co., 342.
...to pay the balance of $14,500 on or before April 5, 1935. He failed to make the payment, and on April 15, 1935, was notified in writing 83 F.2d 259 by the attorney for the trustee that the latter would hold him liable for all damage sustained by reason of his failure to comply with the term......