Nienhuis v. Bultman

1 Citing case

  1. Stone v. Indemnity Ins. Co.

    255 N.W. 312 (Mich. 1934)   Cited 5 times
    In Stone v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America, 267 Mich. 580, we pointed out that the blue sky law should be liberally construed, its purpose being to prevent deception in the purchase of securities and that the bond given by the broker was for the purpose of safeguarding the public against misappropriation of proceeds of bonds left with the broker for sale and investment of the proceeds in designated securities.

    The case was tried without a jury and judgment rendered against the defendant. The questions raised in the court below are again presented on appeal. Notwithstanding our holdings in the cases of Timmerman v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co., 243 Mich. 338; Dunnette v. Henry L. Doherty Co., 252 Mich. 597; Timmerman v. Bultman, 253 Mich. 99; Schroetenboer v. Bultman, 253 Mich. 108; Nienhuis v. Bultman, 253 Mich. 109, and Green v. Fidelity Casualty Co. of New York, 261 Mich. 508, appellant claims that they are not determinative of the instant case, either because the precise question was not raised, or because the conditions in indemnity bonds were much broader in scope than the one in the bond upon which this suit is brought. It provided that K.J. Heinzelman Company and all of their registered salesmen would faithfully comply with the provisions of Act No. 220, Pub. Acts 1923, as amended (2 Comp. Laws 1929, ยง 9769 et seq.), known as the blue sky law. Appellant largely relies upon the case of Blumenthal v. Larson, 79 Cal.App. 726 ( 251 P. 241), referred to with approval in Mitchell v. Smith, 204 Cal. 197 ( 267 P. 540).