Wall v. Metropolitan Stock Exchange

168 Mass. 282
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 21, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 168 Mass. 282 (Wall v. Metropolitan Stock Exchange) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wall v. Metropolitan Stock Exchange, 168 Mass. 282 (Mass. 1897).

Opinion

Field, C. J.

We are of opinion that St. 1890, c. 437, is a remedial and not a penal statute. The right given by the second section of the statute is given to the person who contracts to buy or sell upon credit or upon margin, etc., or to the person who employs another so to buy and sell, etc., and it is a right to “sue for and recover in an action of contract from the other party to the contract, or from the person so employed, any payment made or the value of anything delivered,” etc. At common [284]*284law no such right of action existed because the parties were considered in pari delicto. No penalty is imposed by the statute which the Commonwealth or any person other than the person who makes the payment or delivers the thing of value can enforce, and the amount to be recovered is the amount of the payment made or the value of the property delivered.

The statute has been held to be constitutional as a statute intended to suppress a species of gambling. Crandell v. White, 164 Mass. 54.

As the statute was passed in order to suppress transactions which were deemed to be against public policy, it may be that contracts made in advance not to take advantage of the statute would be held void. Bosler v. Rheem, 72 Penn. St. 54. See Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Clements, 140 U. S. 226; Fidelity Mutual Life Association v. Ficklin, 74 Md. 172; Hermany v. Fidelity Mutual Life Association, 151 Penn. St. 17. But after a cause of action under the statute has accrued, it is at the option of the person to whom the right to sue is given whether he will sue or not, and if he neglects to sue no other person can sue. The cause of action being thus the property of the person entitled to sue, and no other person having any interest in it, he can discharge or release it. The releases in this case, being under seal, were sufficient. Aldrich v. Parnell, 147 Mass. 409. Leddy v. Barney, 139 Mass. 394. Squires v. Amherst, 145 Mass. 192. Cole v. Groves, 134 Mass. 471. Tamplin v. Wentworth, 99 Mass. 63. Gray v. Bennett, 3 Met. 522. Mitchell v. Clapp, 12 Cush. 278. Getman v. Second National Bank of Oswego, 89 N. Y. 136.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Pittsley v. David
11 N.E.2d 461 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Continental Corp. v. Gowdy
186 N.E. 244 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Bazirgan v. Arnold & Sears, Inc.
175 N.E. 483 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Federal National Bank v. Koppel
148 N.E. 379 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Commonwealth v. Market Warehouse Co.
146 N.E. 29 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Willcox v. Edwards
123 P. 276 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
Clark v. Bullard
94 N.E. 1042 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Spofford v. State Loan Co.
94 N.E. 287 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Anderson v. Metropolitan Stock Exchange
77 N.E. 706 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Alexander v. McPeck
75 N.E. 88 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Klopot v. Metropolitan Stock Exchange
74 N.E. 596 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Desseau v. Holmes
73 N.E. 656 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Wilson v. Head
69 N.E. 317 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Corey v. Griffin
63 N.E. 420 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)
Clark v. Roberts
62 N.E. 253 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 Mass. 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wall-v-metropolitan-stock-exchange-mass-1897.