Kenalos v. H. v. Greene Co.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1925 |
| Citation | 128 A. 335 |
| Parties | KENALOS v. H. V. GREENE CO. KOUSTAS v. SAME. NAOUMAS v. SAME. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Marble, Judge.
Separate actions of assumpsit for money had and received by Demetrios Kenalos, by Antonios Koustas, and by Efstratos Naoumas against the H. V. Greene Company to recover payment made for stocks sold in violation of Laws 1917, c. 202. The actions were tried together, and jury gave each plaintiff a verdict. Case transferred on defendant's exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
James A. Broderick, of Manchester, for plaintiffs.
Cobleigh & Cobleigh and Marshall D. Cobleigh, all of Nashua, for defendant.
The exception to the order that the cases be tried together lacks merit. The discretionary authority of the trial court to make such an order is not now an open question (Genest v. Odell Co., 75 N. H. 365, 74 A. 593), and the case shows nothing even tending to prove that the discretion was improperly exercised, or that any injustice was done the defendant.
The exception in the Koustas Case to the refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant on the ground that this plaintiff disposed of his stock, and later, for the purpose of enabling himself to bring the suit, reacquired it, must be overruled. If such a situation would be a defense, as to which no opinion is expressed, it is not available here, in view of the evidence that he did nothing of the kind. On the issue thus made, no exception was taken to the instructions to the jury, and they are not involved. Dow v. Latham, 80 N. H. 492. 120 A. 258.
The exception to the refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant in each case on the grounds common to all of them, that Karamanou v. Greene Co., 80 N. H. 420, 124 A. 373, should be overruled, that no plaintiff showed any damage sustained in the purchase of his stock, and that no plaintiff before bringing suit made a tender of his stock to the defendant either with or without the requirement of returning his payment at the time, is also to be overruled. No reason being presented or suggesting itself why Karamanou v. Greene Co. should be overruled, it is affirmed. It holds to be immaterial what value the securities have when bought or later. While it does not go so far as to hold that a plaintiff may recover if he does not return the securities, it does not hold that a tender of them must be made before suit is brought. It is now the law that if a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin Nat. Bank v. Austin
...fair value. Literal restoration of the status quo is unnecessary. Copeland v. Reynolds, 86 N.H. 110, 113, 164 A. 215; Kenalos v. H. V. Greene Co., 81 N.H. 426, 128 A. 335. The defendants urge that there was no mistake on the part of the bank because it intended to bid the balance due on the......
-
Mccracken v. Car & Gen. Ins. Corp..
...are not before us. If the matter were wholly procedural, it might be disposed of under the rule followed in Kenalos v. H. V. Greene Company, 81 N.H. 426, 128 A. 335, and Page Belting Company v. Prince, 77 N.H. 309, 91 A. 961, dispensing with tender. But the issue goes beyond procedure to th......
-
Carbone v. Boston & Maine R. R.
...presents no substantial question of law. The discretionary authority of the court to make such an order is clear. Kenalos v. Greene Company, 81 N.H. 426, 128 A. 335; Genest v. Odell Mfg. Company, 75 N.H. 365, 74 A. 593. It was for the presiding justice to decide whether justice and convenie......
-
Bullard v. McCarthy
...of the motion was not referred to in oral argument or mentioned in the defendant's brief, it is deemed to be waived. Kenalos v. Greene Company, 81 N.H. 426, 427, 128 A. 335. The errors which plaintiffs' counsel committed in his argument to the jury were not harmful as a matter of law, and t......