§
Bingham v. Comm'r

5 Cited authorities

  1. Provost v. United States

    269 U.S. 443 (1926)   Cited 58 times
    In Provost v. United States, 269 U.S. 443-456, 46 S. Ct. 152, 70 L. Ed. 352, it was held that the "lending," "borrowing," and "return" of "borrowed" stock involved transfers of legal title to shares of stock, that they were actually sales, and that both the "loan" and "return" were subject to tax.

  2. Rosenthal v. Brown

    160 N.E. 921 (N.Y. 1928)   Cited 22 times
    In Brown v. Fidelity Union Trust Co. (supra, 440), where a similar situation existed, the life beneficiary of a trust who was the donee of a power of appointment did not avail herself of the right to challenge certain questionable investments as illegal, but acquiesced in their approval upon accountings by the trustees.

  3. Jones v. De Ronde

    142 Misc. 831 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1932)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that a customer ratified unconscionable acts by stockbrokers by giving them more funds and asking them to conduct more trades

  4. Brown v. Carpenter

    182 App. Div. 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 1918)

    February 1, 1918. Edward A. Alexander, for the appellant. Louis J. Vorhaus of counsel [ Joseph Fischer with him on the brief; House, Grossman Vorhaus, attorneys], for the respondents. PAGE, J.: The action was brought by the plaintiff who was a resident of Washington, D.C. On or about the 22d day of July 1915, plaintiff called at the place of business of A.G. Plant Co. and told Mr. Plant that he desired to buy six $1,000 Kennecott bonds at 118 and desired to know whether Carpenter Co. in New York

  5. Campbell v. Wright

    23 N.E. 914 (N.Y. 1890)   Cited 10 times

    Argued January, 14, 1890 Decided February 25, 1890 D.M. Porter for appellants. W.R. Darling for respondent. BRADLEY, J. The defendants, brokers at Chicago, on the 9th day of April, 1885, pursuant to arrangement with plaintiff, who lived in the city of New York, sold short for the latter 50,000 bushels of wheat at the price of eighty-seven and five-eighths cents per bushel, deliverable in May following. The defendants were represented in the city of New York by one Brown, and one Dawson acted for