Block v. Pennsylvania Exchange Bank

New York Supreme Court

Block v. Pennsylvania Exchange Bank

134 Misc. 153, 235 N.Y.S. 671, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1146

DecidedMay 3, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 134 Misc. 153 (Block v. Pennsylvania Exchange Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Block v. Pennsylvania Exchange Bank, 134 Misc. 153, 235 N.Y.S. 671, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1146 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Cotillo, J.

The • action is by stockbrokers against a State bank for damages due to its failure to take up certain stock purchased by plaintiffs for principals for which the bank was acting as agent. The original complaint was held bad by the Appellate [154]*154Division on the authority of Dyer v. Broadway Central Bank (130 Misc. 842), evidently because a bank could not legally engage in the purchase of common stocks. It was indicated in that opinion that while a National bank could not act as agent for another in the purchase of securities, the situation might be different with State banks “ when specially authorized by the Superintendent of Banks.” (Banking Law, § 106, added by Laws of 1919, chap. 159, as amd. by Laws of 1926, chap. 331.)

■’> It is urged by the defendant that the fact of such authorization must be affirmatively alleged in the complaint. I think that such authorization is sufficiently general to entitle the plaintiff to prove the existence of it at the trial. The motion is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cotillo, J.

The • action is by stockbrokers against a State bank for damages due to its failure to take up certain stock purchased by plaintiffs for principals for which the bank was acting as agent. The original complaint was held bad by the Appellate [154]*154Division on the authority of Dyer v. Broadway Central Bank (130 Misc. 842), evidently because a bank could not legally engage in the purchase of common stocks. It was indicated in that opinion that while a National bank could not act as agent for another in the purchase of securities, the situation might be different with State banks “ when specially authorized by the Superintendent of Banks.” (Banking Law, § 106, added by Laws of 1919, chap. 159, as amd. by Laws of 1926, chap. 331.)

■’> It is urged by the defendant that the fact of such authorization must be affirmatively alleged in the complaint. I think that such authorization is sufficiently general to entitle the plaintiff to prove the existence of it at the trial. The motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 Misc. 153, 235 N.Y.S. 671, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/block-v-pennsylvania-exchange-bank-nysupct-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack