Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Scott and Brand for him argued—(1) That the pursuers held themselves out as stockbrokers in the transactions which took place between them and the defender and the actual brokers in these transactions; but that, as they were in point of fact not brokers, and had delegated the making of the purchases and sales to others who were brokers, but whom the defender did not employ, they were not entitled to recover in respect of the said alleged losses. (2) That the defender instructed the pursuers to buy on the 27th February double the quantity of shares of each stock required for the engagement to deliver on that day, and 200 more; and that if the pursuer had obeyed these instructions, he would have had a profit upon the new shares equal to or greater than the loss upon the others, and that as the sum sued for is the loss arising from the pursuers' failure to fulfil the whole order, they are not entitled to recover. (3) That the defender was not liable for losses on transactions between the stockbrokers and the pursuers, but with which the defender personally had no concern, seeing that he did not employ the stockbrokers nor was any party to transactions between the pursuers and them. (4) That, not being brokers, the pursuers were not entitled to charge commission on the said transactions.—( Cope v. Rowlands, 2 M. & W., p. 149. Keyser, Law of the Stock Exchange, p. 267; 6 Anne, cap. 16.)

Watson and Trayner, for the respondents, were not called upon.

The Court adhered to the judgments of the Sheriff and Sheriff-substitute, and found the pursuers entitled to expenses both in this and in the inferior court.