Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis, Inc. v. Mouer

531 S.W.2d 805, 19 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 113, 1975 Tex. LEXIS 282
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 17, 1975
DocketB-5238
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 531 S.W.2d 805 (Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis, Inc. v. Mouer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis, Inc. v. Mouer, 531 S.W.2d 805, 19 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 113, 1975 Tex. LEXIS 282 (Tex. 1975).

Opinion

*806 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Upon suit by the State of Texas, the trial court entered final judgment ordering that Petitioner, et al., be permanently enjoined from selling and offering to sell, within the State of Texas, securities involving “London Commodity Options” except in compliance with the Securities Act of Texas. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed this judgment, stating: “We affirm the judgment of the trial court enjoining appellant from selling securities involving London options, because the offer and sale of such securities without registration is prohibited by the Texas Securities Act.” 520 S.W.2d 802.

The application for writ of error subsequently filed by Petitioner was refused, no reversible error. Subsequently, Petitioner filed its motion for rehearing and, later, a motion to dismiss the entire cause as moot. The basis for the motion was the enactment by the United States Congress of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974, P.L. 93-463, 88 Stat. 1389,1 U.S.Code Cong, and Admin.News p. 1589 (1974), which became effective on April 21, 1975. The Act instituted federal regulation for commodity futures trading. In The State of Texas v. Monex International, Ltd., 527 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.Civ.App.—1975), the Court ruled, in effect, that the Federal Act preempts regulation of margin account sales for future delivery. Application for writ of error was this day refused. This ruling is equally applicable to the subject matter here and consistent therewith, and pursuant to Rule 483, Tex.R.Civ.P., we grant the motion of Petitioner to dismiss this cause as moot and it is so ordered.

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

Related

Hand v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.
889 S.W.2d 483 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Mallen v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
605 F. Supp. 1105 (N.D. Georgia, 1985)
Nattrass v. Rosenthal and Co.
641 S.W.2d 675 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Cross v. DFW South Entry Partnership
629 S.W.2d 860 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Singer v. Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis, Inc.
620 S.W.2d 720 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)
International Trading, Ltd. v. Bell
556 S.W.2d 420 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1977)
Commercial Trading Corp. v. Searsy
559 S.W.2d 663 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1977)
State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Coin Wholesalers, Inc.
250 N.W.2d 583 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
531 S.W.2d 805, 19 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 113, 1975 Tex. LEXIS 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayton-brokerage-co-of-st-louis-inc-v-mouer-tex-1975.