Sharp v. Stalker

CourtNew Jersey County Court
Writing for the CourtSTEVENS, V. C.
Citation52 A. 1120,63 N.J.E. 596
Decision Date06 September 1902
PartiesSHARP et al. v. STALKER et ux.
52 A. 1120
63 N.J.E. 596

SHARP et al.
v.
STALKER et ux.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Sept. 6, 1902.


Suit by Willoughby W. Sharp and another against John Stalker and wife. Decree for defendants.

Alan H. Strong, for complainants.

Willard P. Voorhees, for defendants.

STEVENS, V. C. This is a suit brought to set aside a fraudulent conveyance made by John Stalker to his wife. On July 26, 1894, the plaintiffs recovered judgment against the defendant John Stalker for $2,071.64. The judgment is based upon two promissory notes, for $1,000 each, made by Stalker to complainants, dated November 1, 1893. On November 3d of that year Stalker conveyed certain real estate In New Brunswick to Charles B. Herbert, and on November 4, 1893, Herbert conveyed it to Margaret I. Stalker, wife of John Stalker. In each deed the consideration is stated to be $1. Without discussing the evidence, I may say that I think it shows that the conveyances were fraudulent as against the complainants, and that complainants could avoid them if they held a judgment enforceable as against Mrs. Stalker. In the words of the court of appeals in Menzesheimer v. Doolittle, 60 N. J. Eq. 397, 45 Atl. 611, although the judgment fixes as against all the world the status of the plaintiffs as judgment creditors of the defendant, it does not prevent defendant's wife, who was not a party thereto, and who has had for the first time in this cause an opportunity to raise the defense, from showing the real character of the debt. It is contended by Mrs. Stalker that the debt arose out of a stock-gambling transaction, that the facts are substantially the same as those proved in Menzesheimer v. Doolittle, and that relief must be refused complainants on the grounds there indicated. I think that this contention is correct.

It appears from the correspondence that on July 2, 1888, an account, for purposes of speculation, was opened by Stalker with the firm of W. H. Calhoun & Co., who were stockbrokers in New York City, and that $1,000 was deposited with them as a margin. This firm.

52 A. 1121

of which the complainant Sharp was a member, dealt with Stalker until July, 1891, when it was succeeded by the present firm of Sharp & Bryan. The account with the latter was continued until the close of the year 1893 or the early part of 1894. During all this time stocks were bought and sold for the account of Stalker. The purchases were at times very large,—far beyond the ability of Stalker to pay. In September, 1891, the month in which the purchases were the largest, they amounted to over $600,000. The money to buy was in every case supplied by the brokers. During the five years of their dealings, nothing was ever called for but a margin. The contention of counsel for complainants is that, inasmuch as the evidence does not show affirmatively that there were to be no deliveries as between broker and customer, the transaction was not proved to be a dealing in differences, and therefore a gambling transaction. In order to test the soundness of this contention, I will state the legal effect of the transaction as I understand it. It is beyond question that, as between the brokers and those of whom they bought or to whom they sold, the purchases and sales were real purchases and sales. When the transaction was a "long" transaction, the stocks were bought and paid for by the brokers out of their own moneys, and there was an actual delivery of the stock certificates. When the transaction was a "short" one, although the brokers did not have the stock when they sold it, they would be able to borrow it, and so to make an actual delivery at the time stipulated. They received the price of the stock so sold, and they presumably used the money received in the purchase of other stock sufficient to replace that borrowed. I say, therefore, that, as between the brokers and those with whom they dealt, the transactions were real transactions, and not dealings in differences. And if the complainants stood simply in the position of agents of Stalker, buying and selling only on his behalf, the transaction could not be regarded as unlawful. This was the view taken of it by the English courts in Thacker v. Hardy, 4 Q. B. Div. 685,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Alamaris v. Jno. F. Clark & Co, 30425
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 13, 1933
    ...jury. James v. Clement, 223 F. 385; Alex Hyman & Co. v. Hay, 277 F. 898; Hobrook v. Shepard, 279 F. 193; Sharp v. Stalker, 63 N.J.Eq. 596, 52 A. 1120; Benson Stabeck Co. v. Reservation Farmers' Grain Co., 62 Mont. 254, 205 P. 651; Clark v. McNeil, 25 F.2d 247; Andrews v. George M. Shutt & C......
  • Clucas v. Bank of Montclair, No. 118.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • April 28, 1933
    ...Pratt v. Boody, 55 N. J. Eq. 175, 35 A. 1113; Minzesheimer v. Doolittle, 60 N. J. Eq. 394, 45 A. 611; Sharp v. Stalker, 63 N. J. Eq. 596, 52 A. 1120; Thompson v. Williamson, 67 N. J. Eq. 212, 58 A. 602; Blessing v. Smith, 74 N. J. Eq. 593, 70 A. 933. It would, therefore, have been error to ......
  • Andrews v. George M. Shutt & Co., No. 5947.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • October 29, 1930
    ...223 F. 385; Alex Hyman & Co. v. Hay (C. C. A.) 277 F. 898; Holbrook v. Shepard (C. C. A.) 279 F. 193; Sharp v. Stalker, 63 N. J. Eq. 596, 52 A. 1120; Benson-Stabeck Co. v. Reservation Farmers' Grain Co., 62 Mont. 254, 205 P. 651; Clark v. McNeill (C. C. A.) 25 F.(2d) We think the foregoing ......
  • Denman v. Mentz
    • United States
    • New Jersey County Court
    • September 17, 1902
    ...would, nevertheless, be implied, assuming that the light was "necessary" in the very lax sense in which that word has been used, 52 A. 1120 were it not for the covenant against incumbrances; and Quimby's grantee would not be permitted to build upon this narrow lot in such manner as to obstr......
4 cases
  • Alamaris v. Jno. F. Clark & Co, 30425
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 13, 1933
    ...jury. James v. Clement, 223 F. 385; Alex Hyman & Co. v. Hay, 277 F. 898; Hobrook v. Shepard, 279 F. 193; Sharp v. Stalker, 63 N.J.Eq. 596, 52 A. 1120; Benson Stabeck Co. v. Reservation Farmers' Grain Co., 62 Mont. 254, 205 P. 651; Clark v. McNeil, 25 F.2d 247; Andrews v. George M. Shutt & C......
  • Clucas v. Bank of Montclair, No. 118.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • April 28, 1933
    ...Pratt v. Boody, 55 N. J. Eq. 175, 35 A. 1113; Minzesheimer v. Doolittle, 60 N. J. Eq. 394, 45 A. 611; Sharp v. Stalker, 63 N. J. Eq. 596, 52 A. 1120; Thompson v. Williamson, 67 N. J. Eq. 212, 58 A. 602; Blessing v. Smith, 74 N. J. Eq. 593, 70 A. 933. It would, therefore, have been error to ......
  • Andrews v. George M. Shutt & Co., No. 5947.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • October 29, 1930
    ...223 F. 385; Alex Hyman & Co. v. Hay (C. C. A.) 277 F. 898; Holbrook v. Shepard (C. C. A.) 279 F. 193; Sharp v. Stalker, 63 N. J. Eq. 596, 52 A. 1120; Benson-Stabeck Co. v. Reservation Farmers' Grain Co., 62 Mont. 254, 205 P. 651; Clark v. McNeill (C. C. A.) 25 F.(2d) We think the foregoing ......
  • Denman v. Mentz
    • United States
    • New Jersey County Court
    • September 17, 1902
    ...would, nevertheless, be implied, assuming that the light was "necessary" in the very lax sense in which that word has been used, 52 A. 1120 were it not for the covenant against incumbrances; and Quimby's grantee would not be permitted to build upon this narrow lot in such manner as to obstr......

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