Starkweather v. Gleason
| Decision Date | 22 May 1915 |
| Citation | 221 Mass. 552,109 N.E. 635 |
| Parties | STARKWEATHER v. GLEASON (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Norfolk County.
Actions by Helen Burr Starkweather and by William G. Starkweather against Frederick J. Gleason. There was a verdict for defendant, and the case was reported to the Supreme Judicial Court. Judgment ordered on the verdict.
Frank T. Benner and Laurence A. Brown, both of Boston, for plaintiffs.
Curtis G. Metzler, of Boston, and John B. Welch, of Cambridge, for defendant.
The correspondence between the parties would have warranted the jury in finding that the plaintiffs invested in the preferred and common shares of the Walpole Rubber & Tire Company in reliance on the advice and judgment of the defendant, its vice president and general superintendent. And having called his attention to the decline in market value of the stock, he wrote them from the company's office, on March 26, 1913:
If 'at any time you feel really worried why come out and you can get your money to the value you paid for the stock from me.'
To which they replied, March 27, 1913:
'For the present * * * we will not take advantage of your willingness to protect us, but will wait to see if the value of the preferred drops any further, for if this continues we would not care to retain our small holdings.'
If this had been an unconditional acceptance the transaction would have been closed and the plaintiffs, upon delivery of the certificates, properly indorsed, would have been entitled to the amount invested. It was not, however, until August 26 1913, after a receiver for the company had been appointed that they accepted the offer and notified the defendant of their readiness to deliver the stock, but he refused performance. While the offer to buy was evidently for the purpose of protecting them from loss on the investment, and was not intended by the defendant as a purely business transaction, the words, 'at any time,' do not cover an unlimited period to be measured by the alternating hopes or fears of the plaintiffs, but must be construed as limited to a reasonable time. Holland v. Cheshire R. R., 151 Mass. 231, 236, 24 N.E. 206. And the facts not being in dispute this was a question of law for the court. Holbrook v. Burt, 22 Pick. 546, 555. The plaintiffs, with knowledge of the fluctuating financial condition of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mississippi Power Co. v. Bennett
...24 So. 874; Butler v. Smith, 35 Miss. 464; Kirkland v. Carr, 35 Miss. 584; Hall v. Eastman, Gardiner & Co., 89 Miss. 616; Starkweather v. Gleason, 109 N.E. 635; v. Chesire R. R., 151 Mass. 231, 236, 24 N.E. 206; Holbrook v. Burt, 22 Pick. 546, 555; Fuchs v. Meyer, 227 N.W. 265; McDonald v. ......
-
Thomas v. Mississippi Power & Light Co
... ... So. 874; Butler v. Smith, 35 Miss. 464; Kirkland ... v. Carr, 35 Miss. 584; Hall v. Eastman, Gardiner & ... Co., 89 Miss. 616; Starkweather v. Gleason, 109 ... N.E. 635; Fuchs v. Meyer, 227 N.W. 265; McDonald ... v. Van Etta, 228 N.W. 480; 23 C. J. 76; Midland ... Steel Sales Co. v ... ...
-
Magee v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co.
... ... Meyer, 227 N.W. 265; Hoffman v ... Killett, 250 Ill.App. 492; Fulmele v. Los Angeles ... Inv. Co., 51 Cal.App. 417, 196 P. 924; Starkweather ... v. Gleason, 221 Mass. 552, 109 N.E. 635; Park v ... Whitney, 148 Mass. 278, 19 N.E. 161; Odden v ... Jamison, 129 Minn. 489, 152 N.W. 871; ... ...
-
Horowitz v. S. Slater & Sons, Inc.
...date the offer of October 6, 1921, had expired by lapse of time. See Park v. Whitney, 148 Mass. 278, 19 N. E. 161;Starkweather v. Gleason, 221 Mass. 552, 109 N. E. 635;Chatham Manuf. Co. v. Avery Chemical Co., 235 Mass. 340, 345, 126 N. E. 772. Exceptions not argued are treated as waived. E......