Samuel M. Opper v. Hancock Securities Corporation

367 F.2d 157, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4804
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided October 5, 1966·No. 30434_1·Published·Cited by 32 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In action by Connecticut customer against New York broker-dealer for damages for failure to carry out contract for sale of stock, based on New York law and the Securities Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j, 78o), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Marvin E. Frankel, Judge, entered judgment for plaintiff. 250 F.Supp. 668 (S.D.N.Y.1966). We find no error and in open court we have affirmed the judgment.

The principal attacks on appeal are on the finding of a contract for a sale at market. The court credited the testimony of plaintiff, which amply supports the finding. Credibility is for determination by the trier. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Havana Madrid Restaurant Corp., 175 F. 2d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1949). Failure to carry out the order while disposing of its own similar stock was not only actionable under the contract but also a violation of the Securities Exchange Act. See Barnett v. United States, 319 F.2d 340, 344, 345 (8th Cir. 1963). As such, it was actionable in a private suit. Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., 188 F.2d 783 (2d Cir. 1951). The proof of sales of its own stock by defendant constituted a proper criterion for measuring damages, and recovery was rightly allowed for the damages proved, although higher in amount than the original ad damnum.

The claim of bias on the part of the trial judge is so lacking in substance as not to require comment. See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966). The judgment is affirmed.

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

Samuel M. Opper v. Hancock Securities Corporation, 367 F.2d 157, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4804 (2d Cir. 1966).

367 F.2d 157 (Samuel M. Opper v. Hancock Securities Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Landegger v. Cohen
5 F. Supp. 3d 1278 (D. Colorado, 2013)
Newton v. Merrill Lynch
Third Circuit, 1997
Capital District Physician's Health Plan v. O'Higgins
939 F. Supp. 992 (N.D. New York, 1996)
In Re Merrill Lynch Securities Litigation
911 F. Supp. 754 (D. New Jersey, 1995)
Snyder v. Newhard, Cook & Co., Inc.
764 F. Supp. 612 (D. Colorado, 1991)
Goodman v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc.
698 F. Supp. 1078 (S.D. New York, 1988)
McCowan v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
682 F. Supp. 741 (S.D. New York, 1987)
In Re Gas Reclamation, Inc. Securities Litigation
659 F. Supp. 493 (S.D. New York, 1987)
Roberts v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Inc.
653 F. Supp. 406 (D. Massachusetts, 1986)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Seaboard Corp.
677 F.2d 1301 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
Lewis v. Riklis
446 F. Supp. 582 (S.D. New York, 1978)
Ladjevardian v. Laidlaw-Coggeshall, Inc.
431 F. Supp. 834 (S.D. New York, 1977)
Byrnes v. Faulkner, Dawkins & Sullivan
550 F.2d 1303 (Second Circuit, 1977)
Oliver v. Bostetter
426 F. Supp. 1082 (D. Maryland, 1977)
Dopp v. Franklin National Bank
374 F. Supp. 904 (S.D. New York, 1974)