|
|
Sim v. Edenborn, 242 U.S. 131 (1916)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Sim v. Edenborn, 242 U.S. 131 (1916)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 242 U.S. 128, click here.
Sim v. Edenborn No. 8 Argued May 5, 1915 Restored to docket for reargument April 3, 1916 Reargued October 23, 1916 Decided December 4, 1916 242 U.S. 131
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Respondent induced petitioner and others to join with him as subscribers to a syndicate agreement, under which the stock of a corporation was acquired, other property purchased and added to its capital, its stock increased, and the shares distributed to the subscribers in proportion to their subscriptions. By this agreement, respondent was constituted an agent for the other subscribers, with large powers, and became their fiduciary in respect of the acquisition and management of the subject matter. By misleading representations and suppression, he concealed the fact that the original shares were largely his when the agreement was made, and, carrying out a purpose entertained from the beginning, surreptitiously made use of those he owned in squaring off his subscription. Subsequently, petitioner and other subscribers, discovering this deception and fraud, promptly elected to rescind, gave due notice, offered to return all stock by them received, and demanded back their money.
Held that tender of the stock actually received, being all the subscribers could do toward restoring the original position, was an adequate preliminary to an action at law against the respondent to recover the amounts paid on their subscriptions. Heckscher v. Edenborn, 203 N.Y. 210, approved.
Although, on a question of commercial law or general jurisprudence, the federal courts exercise their own judgment, they nevertheless lean toward agreement with the state courts where the question is balanced with doubt.
206 F. 275 reversed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Sim v. Edenborn, 242 U.S. 131 (1916) in 242 U.S. 131 242 U.S. 132. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=3RQKDLYJIPJ5HY4.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Sim v. Edenborn, 242 U.S. 131 (1916), in 242 U.S. 131, page 242 U.S. 132. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=3RQKDLYJIPJ5HY4.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Sim v. Edenborn, 242 U.S. 131 (1916). cited in 1916, 242 U.S. 131, pp.242 U.S. 132. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=3RQKDLYJIPJ5HY4.
|