Vogelaar v. H. L. Robbins & Co.
| Decision Date | 01 February 1965 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Frances J. VOGELAAR, Administratrix, v. H. L. ROBBINS & CO., Inc., et al. |
Harry Zarrow, Worcester (Jacob Oppewal, Whitinsville, with him), for plaintiff.
Lawrence A. Sullivan, Boston, for defendants.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER and SPIEGEL, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
One Roukema's administratrix seeks to establish a trust and obtain an accounting in respect of dealings between (a) Roukema and (b) the defendants, a licensed stockbroker and a securities firm acting as broker and on occasion as dealer. The trial judge, denying further leave to amend, sustained a demurrer to an amended bill which in very general terms alleged, inter alia, (1) that the defendants were aware that Roukema knew little about the securities business, had been under intermittent psychiatric treatment, and completely relied upon them; (2) that he had transferred funds to the defendants 'to invest and reinvest * * * in good and safe securities for him'; (3) that the defendants controlled the funds 'subject to their duty to hold same in trust' to invest them for Roukema's benefit, and traded the fund with undue frequency for their own benefit rather than Roukema's interest; and (4) that, without disclosing 'their own secret interest' they invested the funds (see Hall v. Paine, 224 Mass. 62, 73, 112 N.E. 153, L.R.A. 1917C, 737) in securities owned by them and themselves bought securities formerly sold to Roukema's account. The allegations suggest a situation in some respects similar to that found by the master in Birch v. Arnold & Sears, Inc., 288 Mass. 125, 136-138, 192 N.E. 591, where the bill was not tested by demurrer. The allegations, however, do not set out with precision the facts concerning the defendants' undertaking or the circumstances of particular transactions and arrangements. They fall short of indicating a fiduciary (as distinguished from a business) relationship or that the defendants made a contractual undertaking to direct the investment program without control by Roukema. See Brown v. Corey, 191 Mass. 189, 191, 77 N.E. 838; Snow v. Merchants Natl. Bank, 309 Mass. 354, 360-361, 35 N.E.2d 213; Plumer v. Luce, 310 Mass. 789, 793, 796, 799, 39 N.E.2d 961; Yamins v. Zeitz, 322 Mass. 268, 272-273, 76 N.E.2d 769. See also Furber v. Dane, 204 Mass. 412, 415-417, 90 N.E. 859, 27 L.R.A., N.S., 808. Cf. Akin v. Warner, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shamsi v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., Civ. A. No. 88-2617-S.
...acumen, did not create a fiduciary relationship. The court relied on a decision of the Supreme Judicial Court, Vogelaar v. H.L. Robbins & Co., 348 Mass. 787, 204 N.E.2d 461 (1965), for the proposition that a client's "minimal knowledge of investments and blind reliance on his broker" were i......
-
Patsos v. FIRST ALBANY CORPORATION
...a jury reasonably could find that the relationship between First Albany and Patsos was fiduciary in nature. Relying on Vogelaar v. H.L. Robbins & Co., 348 Mass. 787 (1965), the motion judge concluded that under Massachusetts law there was no fiduciary relationship between Accomando or First......
-
Carpenter v. Suffolk Franklin Sav. Bank
...precision the facts of the defendant's undertaking and the circumstances of the particular transaction. See Vogelaar v. H. L. Robbins & Co., Inc., 348 Mass. 787, 788, 204 N.E.2d 461. There is nothing in the plaintiffs' allegations that necessarily precludes a fiduciary relationship and ther......
-
Mansor v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
...were acting in a fiduciary capacity at the time they engaged in the unlawful account activity. SeeVogelaar v. H.L. Robbins & Co., 348 Mass. 787, 788, 204 N.E.2d 461, 462 (1965) (finding that allegations were insufficient to plead the existence of a fiduciary relationship between defendants ......