Walston & Co. v. Miller, 7338

CourtSupreme Court of Arizona
Citation100 Ariz. 48,410 P.2d 658
Docket NumberNo. 7338,7338
PartiesWALSTON & CO., Inc., a corporation, Appellant, v. Joseph B. MILLER and Adina Miller, husband and wife, Appellees.
Decision Date02 February 1966

Page 658

410 P.2d 658
100 Ariz. 48
WALSTON & CO., Inc., a corporation, Appellant,
Joseph B. MILLER and Adina Miller, husband and wife, Appellees.
No. 7338.
Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.
Feb. 2, 1966.

[100 Ariz. 50]

Page 659

Ryley, Carlock & Ralston, Phoenix, for appellant.

James E. Flynn, and Allan K. Perry, Phoenix, for appellees.

Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes, Phoenix, and White & Case, New York City, as amicus curiae for Assn. of Stock Exchange Firms.

MARY ANNE RICHEY, Superior Court Judge.

This appeal arises out of a cause of action brought by Walston and Co., Inc., appellant, hereinafter referred to as Walston, against Joseph B. Miller and his wife, appellees, hereinafter referred to as Miller. Walston claimed when Miller's commodity account was closed out on April 15, 1957, Miller owed it $1,105.85. Miller counterclaimed alleging that Walston owed Miller

Page 660

a duty to timely notify Miller of certain information which might affect prices on the World Sugar Market. Miller claimed that this failure caused him to lose monies deposited by Miller with Walston in connection with trades and in addition, to lose certain profits. The trial judge, sitting without a jury, found in favor of Walston on its complaint in the some of $1,105.85, and also found in favor of Miller on the counterclaim and awarded damages in the sum of $18,075.60.

From January 16, 1957 to April 15, 1957, Miller was engaged in the purchase and sale of sugar contracts on the World Sugar Market. The purchase or sale of a contract was done through Walston, and Walston was paid a fee of $35.00 for the handling of each separate contract. During this period, Miller spent much time in Walston's office studying Dow Jones averages, publications, and wire services provided by Walston.

On January 7, 1957, prior to the purchase of any contracts, Miller signed a management agreement with Walston outlining the terms under which Walston agreed to lend him a portion of purchase prices of various securities and commodities.

Miller claims that on three separate occasions Walston was negligent in either failing to advise or failing to give timely advice of certain information in the possession of Walston that directly affected the sugar contracts held by Miller. Specifically, on February 1, 1957, after the market closed, O'Neill, representative of Walston, phoned Miller and read to him a quote from Dow Jones' ticker to the effect that the International Sugar Council had noted the lifting of quotas on the exporting of sugar by member countries of the World Market. Miller and O'Neill discussed the [100 Ariz. 51] possibility of this causing the 'bottom to drop out from under the sugar market'. Miller claimed later that Steve Greenberg, commodity analyst of Walston's in New York, had information at that time which allegedly might have offset the mistaken inferences both he and O'Neill drew.

Next, Miller complains that Walston omitted to supply him personally with certain opinions and advice contained in the daily market letter of February 4, 1957, sent out by Greenberg to all Walston offices. Miller called Greenberg on February 5, and at that time, received all information known to Greenberg. Miller further complains that Walston failed to timely notify him of confirmation of the fact that Russia had purchased 200,000 tons of sugar on the World Sugar Market. The evidence in the case showed that the Phoenix office of Walston was sent a wire from Greenberg at 12:00 noon (Tucson time), April 10, concerning this fact; that at 12:50 P.M. of the same day, Miller called Greenberg and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Eastern Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Com'n, 1 CA-CV 01-0476.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • October 30, 2003
    ...that the customer must deposit is called margin and is the customer's initial equity in the account. See, e.g., Walston & Co. v. Miller, 100 Ariz. 48, 52-53, 410 P.2d 658, 661 (1966)(describing relationship between customer and broker in margin 7. FISC, Simmons, and Tokyo did not participat......
  • Hand v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., A14-93-01024-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • October 6, 1994
    ...the purchase or sale of the security or future[s] contracts on the market." Robinson, 337 F.Supp. at 111 (quoting Walston & Co. v. Miller, 100 Ariz. 48, 410 P.2d 658, 661 (1966)). As a general proposition, a broker's duty in relation to a nondiscretionary account is complete, and his author......
  • Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Adams, 84SC58
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • May 12, 1986
    ...788 (8th Cir.1985); Caravan Mobile Home Sales, Inc. v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb, Inc., 769 F.2d 561 (9th Cir.1985); Walston & Co. v. Miller, 100 Ariz. 48, 410 P.2d 658, 661 (1966); Boeck, 377 N.W.2d at In assessing the existence of control by a broker, courts have not limited the scope of the......
  • Carras v. Burns, 74-1224
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • May 6, 1975
    ...Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 337 F.Supp. 107, 110-113 (N.D.Ala.1971), aff'd, 453 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1972); Walston & Co. v. Miller, 100 Ariz. 48, 410 P.2d 658, 661 (1966). If he did offer advice, he would be required by Rule 10b-5 not to mislead by knowing falsehoods or concealment of mat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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