Holmes v. Eddy, No. 9511

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation341 F.2d 477
PartiesJohn V. HOLMES and Hydramotive Manufacturing Corporation, Appellants, v. Jay EDDY, Harris, Upham & Company, John Doe, Martin V. Miller, Thomas W. Rae, M. David Hyman, Walter C. Johnson, William Lucius Cary, and United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Appellees. John V. HOLMES, Durward E. Willis, Solo Tire Company, Hydramotive Corporation, Hydramotive Manufacturing Corporation, Hydramotive Engineering Corporation et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, United States Securities and Exchange Commission, William Lucius Cary, Manuel F. Cohen, Thomas W. Rae, Martin V. Miller et al., Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 9511,9543.
Decision Date18 January 1965

341 F.2d 477 (1965)

John V. HOLMES and Hydramotive Manufacturing Corporation, Appellants,
v.
Jay EDDY, Harris, Upham & Company, John Doe, Martin V. Miller, Thomas W. Rae, M. David Hyman, Walter C. Johnson, William Lucius Cary, and United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Appellees.

John V. HOLMES, Durward E. Willis, Solo Tire Company, Hydramotive Corporation, Hydramotive Manufacturing Corporation, Hydramotive Engineering Corporation et al., Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, United States Securities and Exchange Commission, William Lucius Cary, Manuel F. Cohen, Thomas W. Rae, Martin V. Miller et al., Appellees.

Nos. 9511, 9543.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued October 8, 1964.

Decided January 18, 1965.


341 F.2d 478

John V. Holmes, appellant pro se.

No. 9511:

John A. Dudley, Atty., Securities and Exchange Commission (Philip A. Loomis, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Walter P. North, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, and Martin D. Newman, Atty., Securities and Exchange Commission, on brief), for appellee Securities and Exchange Commission.

Henry James, Jr., Charlotte, N. C. (William R. Cooper, Charlotte, N. C., on brief), for appellees Jay Eddy and Harris, Upham & Co. No. 9543:

John A. Dudley, Special Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission (Philip A. Loomis, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Walter P. North, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, and Martin D. Newman, Atty., Securities and Exchange Commission, and William Medford, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee Securities and Exchange Commission.

Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, BRYAN, Circuit Judge, and GORDON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

As both of these cases, i. e. Nos. 9511 and 9543, arose from substantially the same facts, and were argued at the same time before the Court, the cases are consolidated for decision by the Court.

The plaintiffs named in both of the subject actions were engaged either directly or indirectly in the development of an automobile and tire. In order to promote their endeavors, the plaintiff sought to market stock. The Securities and Exchange Commission (hereinafter referred to as S.E.C. or Commission) in September, 1961, authorized its staff to conduct an investigation to determine whether the plaintiffs herein and others were violating the registration and anti-fraud provisions of the Federal Securities laws in the sale of the stock. During the course of this investigation, Jay Eddy, a stock broker in the employ of Harris, Upham & Company, voluntarily informed the Commission that he had received a letter from Hydramotive Corporation through the mails and that he felt the Company's venture might "bilk the public." Specifically, in this respect, Jay Eddy mailed to the S.E.C. the letter received by him from Hydramotive Corporation and prior to mailing the letter wrote thereon the following: "This company looks like an attempt to bilk the public via the securities market — it has a smell similar to all such."

The Commission requested the defendant Eddy to execute an affidavit as evidence that the alleged misleading letter or literature was being sent through the mails in connection with the sale of stock. The S.E.C. thereafter on December 12, 1961, brought a suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under Section 20(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(b), and Section 21(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against among others, John V. Holmes, Hydramotive Manufacturing Corporation, Hydramotive Corporation and Durward E. Willis, being four of the plaintiffs named in the suits in this appeal, to enjoin defendants from future sales of unregistered stock and the use of false and misleading sales literature. The letter and affidavit from Jay Eddy, which had been kept confidential prior to the Oklahoma action, were introduced as evidence in the Oklahoma action. The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted the relief requested by the S.E.C. and held that there had been a violation of the Federal Securities law, and accordingly, enjoined the sale of the stock. This case is now on appeal and reported at CCH Fed.Sec.L.Rep. Section 91,354 (W.D.Okla.).

After the institution of the Oklahoma action, the plaintiffs instituted the suits which are the subject of this appeal in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

In one of the subject actions (No. 9511), plaintiffs, Hydramotive Manufacturing Corporation and John V. Holmes, in their complaint filed April 2, 1963, named as defendants the United States Securities and Exchange Commission; William Lucius Cary, Chairman of the

341 F.2d 479
Commission; Martin V. Miller, Thomas W. Rae, M. David Hyman, Attorneys employed by the Commission; Walter C. Johnson, Investigator with the Commission; John Doe, an unknown official of the Commission; Harris, Upham & Co., a securities broker-dealer and Jay Eddy, an employee of Harris, Upham & Co. The complaint seeks (1) injunctive relief permanently restraining the individual defendants from "Further circulation of harmful untruth," (2) $20,000.00 in damages to plaintiff Holmes and (3) $500,000.00 in damages to the plaintiff Hydramotive Manufacturing Corporation. In essence, the allegations of the complaint allege that the defendants have conspired to circulate and have circulated publicly untruths about the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 practice notes
  • Practice and procedure: Patent and trademark cases rules of practice; representation of others before Patent and Trademark Office,
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...held absolutely privileged). Communications to Federal agencies responsible for protecting the public are privileged. See Holmes v. Eddy, 341 F.2d 477 (CA 4 1965) (holding communication to the Securities and Exchange Commission did not amount to defamation since Commission had statutory dut......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...held absolutely privileged). Communications to Federal agencies responsible for protecting the public are privileged. See Holmes v. Eddy, 341 F.2d 477 (CA 4 1965) (holding communication to the Securities and Exchange Commission did not amount to defamation since Commission had statutory dut......
  • Mangold v. Analytic Services, Inc., No. 94-1307
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • March 12, 1996
    ...78 L.Ed.2d 725 (1983). And immunity also has been held to extend to witnesses giving testimony to public prosecutors, see Holmes v. Eddy, 341 F.2d 477, 480 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 892, 86 S.Ct. 185, 15 L.Ed.2d 149 (1965). The Page 1449 underlying policy for the grant of such immu......
  • Corrigan v. U.S., Nos. 85-1868
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • June 10, 1987
    ...2118, 72 L.Ed.2d 520 (1982); Indian Towing Co., Inc. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 76 S.Ct. 122, 100 L.Ed. 48 (1955). See Holmes v. Eddy, 341 F.2d 477 (4 Cir.1965), cert. denied. 382 U.S. 892, 86 S.Ct. 185, 15 L.Ed.2d 149 4 Immediately after the accident, Patterson's blood level of alcohol......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
54 cases
  • Mangold v. Analytic Services, Inc., No. 94-1307
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • March 12, 1996
    ...78 L.Ed.2d 725 (1983). And immunity also has been held to extend to witnesses giving testimony to public prosecutors, see Holmes v. Eddy, 341 F.2d 477, 480 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 892, 86 S.Ct. 185, 15 L.Ed.2d 149 (1965). The Page 1449 underlying policy for the grant of such immu......
  • Corrigan v. U.S., Nos. 85-1868
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • June 10, 1987
    ...2118, 72 L.Ed.2d 520 (1982); Indian Towing Co., Inc. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 76 S.Ct. 122, 100 L.Ed. 48 (1955). See Holmes v. Eddy, 341 F.2d 477 (4 Cir.1965), cert. denied. 382 U.S. 892, 86 S.Ct. 185, 15 L.Ed.2d 149 4 Immediately after the accident, Patterson's blood level of alcohol......
  • Miller v. U.S., No. 79-1605
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • June 17, 1983
    ...an action under the FTCA may be brought only against the United States and not against an agency. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2679(a); Holmes v. Eddy, 341 F.2d 477, 480 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 892, 86 S.Ct. 185, 15 L.Ed.2d 149 2 The contents of these discovery requests are not revealed by the......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Company 8212 93, NASH-FINCH
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1971
    ...Evans v. U.S. Veterans Admin. Hospital, 2 Cir., 391 F.2d 261; and the Securities and Exchange Commission, Holmes v. Eddy, 4 Cir., 341 F.2d 477. Similarly, an action by the Director General of Railroads was held to be on behalf of the United States and thus was not barred by the relevant sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT