O'Connell

O'Connell v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

Good Law
1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 917·230 Cal. App. 2d 633·41 Cal. Rptr. 257
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 16, 1964Civ. No. 21789California1,515 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Agee, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant. The facts set forth in the following paragraph are not in dispute.

Defendant is a stockbroker with whom plaintiff maintained a margin account; in early August 1960 * defendant sold short for plaintiff’s account 4,000 shares of Studebaker-Packard common stock at $8.50 to $8,625 per share; on August 17 the price of the stock rose to $9.50 per share; under existing regulations, of which plaintiff claims he was then unaware, defendant was required either to obtain additional margin from plaintiff or to liquidate said account to the extent necessary to raise the credit balance in the account to the required level; on August 18 the market opened at $9.75 per share and the short sale could then have been covered for $39,000 ($9.75 X 4,000); on August 31 defendant sent plaintiff a telegram demanding additional margin; on September 1 the market opened at $13 per share and the cost of covering the short sale had accordingly risen to $52,000 ($13 X 4,000); plaintiff seeks damages of $13,000 for this loss of equity in his account ($52,000 minus $39,000) during the period of August 18 to September 1.

The gravamen of plaintiff’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.