Pearson v. Kurtz
| Decision Date | 10 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | 33 |
| Parties | Pearson v. Kurtz et al., Appellants |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued February 12, 1924
Appeal, No. 33, Jan. T., 1924, by defendants, from judgment of C.P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1920, No. 7564, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Stanley W. Pearson v. Henry K. Kurtz et al., co-partners trading as Kurtz Brothers. Affirmed.
Trespass for alleged unlawful conversion of securities. Before HENRY P.J., specially presiding.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $7,199.62. Defendants appealed.
Error assigned was, inter alia, refusal of defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v., quoting record.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Harold B. Beitler, of Dickson, Beitler & McCouch, for appellants cited: Rinker v. Ins. Co., 214 Pa. 608; Rumberger v. Golden, 99 Pa. 34.
Wm. Clarke Mason, with him A. Allen Woodruff and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, for appellee, cited: Diller v. Brubaker, 52 Pa. 498; Berberich's Est., 257 Pa. 181; Berberich's Est., 264 Pa. 437; Vilsack v. Wilson, 269 Pa. 77.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
Plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment against defendants, upon allegation and proof that, without notice, they had sold certain stocks of his, which they held as collateral security for a debt due by him to them. Upon this appeal they do not raise any question regarding the admission or rejection of evidence; nor as to plaintiff's right to recover, if the sale was made without his express or implied consent; nor as to the amount of the verdict, if he was entitled to recover anything.
In their brief they say that the question to be decided is "Did defendants have a right to sell plaintiff's securities without notice?" and allege as their first reason for claiming this right, that, years before the present transaction began, he had signed and given to another firm of the same name, -- only some of the present defendants being members of it, -- a paper which provided as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Emmons v. McCreery
...duty of a stockbroker to demand margin, and also give the customer full and complete notice of the sale and intention to sell, see Pearson v. Kurtz, 280 Pa. 34; Berberich's Est., 257 Pa. 181; Conynham's App., 57 Pa. 474; Fitchthorne v. Barclay, 14 Pa. D. & C. 83. Plaintiff made no attempt t......
-
Otis v. Medoff
...of the confirmations. New terms could not 166 A. 246 be added without a new meeting of the minds and a new consideration. Pearson v. Kurtz, 280 Pa. 34, 124 A. 272. Appellants insist, however, that the confirmations sent at the completion of the four previous transactions entered into and be......
-
Schwartz v. Sutton
...Appeal, 57 Pa. 474; Learock v. Paxson, 208 Pa. 602, 57 A. 1097; In re Berberich's Estate, 257 Pa. 181, 101 A. 461; Pearson v. Kurtz, 280 Pa. 34, 124 A. 272. This, however, is not the position he assumed on the trial; there he presented a point for charge to the effect that the notice of int......
-
Pearson v. Kurtz
... 124 A. 272 PEARSON v. KURTZ et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. March 10, 1924. 124 A. 272 Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County; C. V. Henry, President Judge. Action by Stanley W. Pearson against Henry K. Kurtz, Jr., and others, copartners, trading as Kurtz Bros. Judgme......