Franklin Trust Co. v. Goerke, 30.
| Decision Date | 22 January 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 30.,30. |
| Citation | 189 A. 89 |
| Parties | FRANKLIN TRUST CO. v. GOERKE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. After judgment in this court, the pleadings in an action at law may be so amended in the trial court as the furtherance of justice may require.
2. An amendment which states a cause of action should be made.
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by the Franklin Trust Company, by Luther A. Harr, Secretary of Banking of the State of Pennsylvania, succeeding William D. Gordon, former Secretary of Banking of the State of Pennsylvania, against Edmund Goerke, wherein the defendant filed a counterclaim. From an adverse judgment, the defendant appeals.
Reversed.
John J. Stamler, of Elizabeth, for appellant.
A. Harry Moore, of Jersey City, for appellee.
The appellant in December of 1930, borrowed $18,000 from the Franklin Trust Company of Philadelphia upon a demand note secured by collateral. Prior to the closing of the bank the market value of the securities pledged had depreciated greatly so that there was a great difference between the amount lent and the amount realized upon the sale of the pledge. The Trust Company's liquidator sued the appellant for the balance due, and the appellant answered and counterclaimed for the damages sustained, setting up that the loss which the bank sought to recover was suffered because of its negligence in failing to sell the securities pledged when requested so to do.
This court held in Franklin Trust Co. v. Goerke, 116 N.J.Law, 529, 185 A. 39, that it was error to submit the case to the jury even though the proofs indicated that the bank was negligent in failing to honor the request of the borrower to sell the securities pledged, for the reason that a pledgee of stock in the absence of contract is under no duty to sell. The appellant then sought leave to amend his answer and counterclaim in order to prove, among other things, the breach of a valid contract made by an officer of the bank, whereby it was obligated to sell the stock pledged when requested so to do and at a time when much more would have been realized than the amount of the debt. The amended pleadings also allege a custom prevalent in the closed bank and other banks in the federal reserve system, whereby, upon request, securities pledged to secure a loan are always sold when sufficient or more money can be realized from a sale thereof...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simpson v. Hudson County Nat. Bank.
...owed by the Bank to Simpson, such allegations if proved in the lawsuit would present a valid defense to that suit (Franklin Trust Co. v. Goerke, 117 N.J.L. 518, 189 A. 89) and therefore no ground is presented by the bill for equitable intervention on that score. But it would seem that the a......
- Kovalchuck v. Simpson & Brown, 68.