Opper v. Hancock Securities Corporation
| Decision Date | 05 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | Docket 30434.,No. 38,38 |
| Parties | Samuel M. OPPER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HANCOCK SECURITIES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Edward Labaton, New York City (Kramer, Bandler & Labaton, Sidney Kramer, and Edward Labaton, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Lewis Perkiss, New York City (Kimmelman & Perkiss, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
Before SMITH, HAYS and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
In action by Connecticut customer against New York broker-dealer for damages for failure to carry out contract for sale of stock, based on New York law and the Securities Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j, 78o), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Marvin E. Frankel, Judge, entered judgment for plaintiff. 250 F.Supp. 668 (S.D.N.Y.1966). We find no error and in open court we have affirmed the judgment.
The principal attacks on appeal are on the finding of a contract for a sale at market. The court credited the testimony of plaintiff, which amply supports the finding. Credibility is for determination by the trier. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Havana Madrid Restaurant Corp., 175 F. 2d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1949). Failure to carry out the order while disposing of its own similar stock was not only actionable under the contract but also a violation of the Securities Exchange Act. See Barnett v. United States, 319 F.2d 340, 344, 345 (8th Cir. 1963). As such, it was actionable in a private suit. Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., 188 F.2d 783 (2(1 Cir. 1951). The proof of sales of its own stock by defendant constituted a proper criterion for measuring damages, and recovery was rightly allowed for the damages proved, although higher in amount than the original ad damnum.
The claim of bias on the part of the trial judge is so lacking in substance as not to require comment. See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966). The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Inc.
... ... allegedly caused by Smith Barney's mishandling of the Roberts' securities trading accounts ... Plaintiffs allege the following: ... ) (quoting Ad Hoc Civil RICO Task Force of the ABA Section of Corporation, Banking and Business Law 72 (1985)). As the Senate Report stated: ... Weis, Voisin, Cannon, Inc., 294 F.Supp. 676 (D.N.J.1968); Opper v. Hancock Securities Corporation, 250 F.Supp. 668 (S.D.N.Y.), affd., ... ...
-
Capital Dist. Physician's Health Plan v. O'HIGGINS
... ... could often be described as contrarian; he would invest in securities based on assumptions that went against the prevailing conventional wisdom ... Id. at 59-60. After hiring First Albany Corporation to take over O'Higgins' CDPHP portfolio, one 939 F. Supp. 997 half of ... Agent and principal, see, e.g., Opper v. Hancock Securities Corp., 250 F.Supp. 668 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 367 ... ...
-
In re Gas Reclamation, Inc. Securities Litigation
...contrary, the Second Circuit unequivocally has held that a private right of action exists under section 15(c)(1). Opper v. Hancock Securities Corp., 367 F.2d 157 (2d Cir.1966); see also Franklin National Bank v. L.B. Meadows & Co., 318 F.Supp. 1339 (E.D.N.Y.1970). This Court is bound by tha......
-
Herpich v. Wallace
...the securities transaction giving the plaintiff standing to sue has not been completed, plaintiffs rely upon Opper v. Hancock Securities Corporation, 2 Cir., 1966, 367 F.2d 157, aff'g S.D.N.Y., 1966, 250 F. Supp. 668, and Goodman v. H. Hentz & Co., N.D.Ill., 1967, 265 F.Supp. In Opper a cus......
-
Holmes v. Grubman
...1966) ("the duties of a securities broker are, if anything, more stringent than those imposed by general agency law."), aff'd per curiam, 367 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1966). As a result, a securities broker is required to adhere to a standard of more than ordinary care in its handling of a client'......