Marshall v. Levy (1884) · DecisionDepot

Marshall v. Levy

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Dec 16, 1884 No. No. 8,986Published

Before: Myrick

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that stock brokers are entitled to recover assessments paid to protect securities held as collateral, and that a guarantor is liable for interest at the statutory rate of seven percent until the balance is ascertained, after which the contract rate applies.

Issues

Were the brokers entitled to deduct assessments paid on stocks from the proceeds of sales?
When did interest begin to run against the guarantor, and at what rates?

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Eppstein & Co. had the legal right to protect the security in their hands by the payment of the assessments.”

“In guaranteeing the account, Baldwin in terms guaranteed interest at the rate of one and one-fourth per cent, per month, only on the balance to be ascertained.”

“The balance was ascertained July 25, 1879; therefore, from that date only is interest to be computed at that rate.”

Synopsis

Guaranty—Contract to Carry Stock—Interest.—L., being indebted to a firm of stock brokers, for moneys advanced by them in stock transactions, arranged with E. & Co., that they should take up the stock, paying to the first firm the amount due it, and carry the stock for him. B. guaranteed to make good any loss E. & Co. might sustain in reselling the stock, balance to be paid with interest at one and one-quarter per cent, per month ; Held, that E. & Co. were entitled to credit for the amount of assessments levied upon the stock, and paid by them during the time they were carrying it; that the various items of the account bore legal interest from their respective dates of payment to the day when the balance of the account was ascertained, and that thereafter such balance bore interest at the rate of one and one quarter per cent, per month.

Myrick, J. defendant Levy, being indebted to a firm of stock brokers for moneys advanced by them in stock transactions, arranged with another firm of stock brokers, Eppstein & Co., that the latter firm should take up the stocks paying to the first firm the amount due it, and carry the stocks for him. In this arrangement the defendant Baldwin was to guarantee on behalf of Levy. The guarantee of Baldwin was in the following terms:

“ San Francisco, March 10, 1879.—M. Julius Levy, in account with Eppstein & Co., commission stock brokers, ISTo. 304 Pine Street.

1879. PURCHASE.

March 10th, 1,250 Belcher, 6J................... $8,125 00

March 10th, 250 Mexican, 40.................. 10,000 00

Com......... 45 30

E. and O. Ex. $18,170 30

“I herewith guarantee the above account, to wit, eighteen thousand, one hundred and seventy, and thirty one-hundredths dollars ($18,170.30), in gold coin, against any loss for sixty days from date, and agree to make good any loss that may be sustained thereon in reselling the above stock ; balance to be paid, with interest at one and one-fourth per cent, per month.

“E. J. Baldwin.”

The term of the guarantee was extended from time to time until July 25, 1879, transactions of sale and purchase of other stocks having been had in the meantime by the consent of Baldwin; and on that day the stocks then in hand were sold by Eppstein & Co., they claiming a balance due them of $4,023.57.

Two questions arise in this appeal, viz: 1. During the time Eppstein & Co. were carrying the stocks, they paid assessments which had been levied thereon. Were they entitled to deduct the amounts so paid from the proceeds of the sales ? 2. As to Baldwin, when did interest begin to run—from the dates respectively of the payments made by Eppstein & Co., or from the time the balance was ascertained, viz, July 25, 1879, and at what rates ?

[238]We are of opinion that Eppstein & Co. had the legal right to protect the security in their hands by the payment of the assessments. Otherwise, it might have been entirely lost by sale for assessments.

Marshall v. Levy

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief