Dent v. Holbrook

California Supreme Court

Dent v. Holbrook

54 Cal. 145

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1880

DocketNo. 5,990

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 54 Cal. 145 (Dent v. Holbrook) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dent v. Holbrook, 54 Cal. 145 (Cal. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Department No. 1, McKee, J.:

An unauthorized sale by a stock-broker of certificates of shares of stock in a mining corporation on which the broker has a lien for payment of part of the purchase-money, is a conversion, for which the owner of the certificates is entitled to recover, as damages, the highest market value of the stock, at any time between the conversion and the verdict, without interest. (Code Civ. Proc. § 3336, as amended January 22nd, 1878.)

The judgment appealed from is sustainable upon this principle, except as to interest, which was allowed by the Court; in that regard it is erroneous. But the amount of the interest, as appears by the record, was $75. Subtracting that from the judgment there remains $723.50, for which the plaintiff is entitled to judgment.

Thus modified, the judgment is affirmed.

McKinstry, P. J., and Ross, J., concurred.

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

Department No. 1, McKee, J.:

An unauthorized sale by a stock-broker of certificates of shares of stock in a mining corporation on which the broker has a lien for payment of part of the purchase-money, is a conversion, for which the owner of the certificates is entitled to recover, as damages, the highest market value of the stock, at any time between the conversion and the verdict, without interest. (Code Civ. Proc. § 3336, as amended January 22nd, 1878.)

The judgment appealed from is sustainable upon this principle, except as to interest, which was allowed by the Court; in that regard it is erroneous. But the amount of the interest, as appears by the record, was $75. Subtracting that from the judgment there remains $723.50, for which the plaintiff is entitled to judgment.

Thus modified, the judgment is affirmed.

McKinstry, P. J., and Ross, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Cal. 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dent-v-holbrook-cal-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack