From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

R.H. Johnson Company v. Sec. Exch. Com'n

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Apr 5, 1956
231 F.2d 523 (D.C. Cir. 1956)

Opinion

No. 12977.

Argued March 9, 1956.

Decided April 5, 1956.

Mr. Milton S. Gould, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, for petitioners. Mr. James R. Browning, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for petitioners.

Mr. Arden L. Andresen, Sp. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, with whom Messrs. William H. Timbers, Gen. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, Thomas G. Meeker, Associate Gen. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Ellwood L. Englander, Atty., Securities and Exchange Commission, were on the brief, for respondent.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, BAZELON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.


The petitioners, R.H. Johnson Company, a partnership, R.H. Johnson Company, Inc., and Rupert H. Johnson, seek review of an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission, entered November 16, 1955, which revoked the registrations of the partnership and corporation as brokers and dealers, and found Rupert H. Johnson was a cause of the revocation. The petitioners were found to have wilfully violated §§ 10(b) and 15(c)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 78j (b) and 78 o(c)(1).

The voluminous record made in an exhaustive hearing amply supports the Commission's order.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

R.H. Johnson Company v. Sec. Exch. Com'n

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Apr 5, 1956
231 F.2d 523 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
Case details for

R.H. Johnson Company v. Sec. Exch. Com'n

Case Details

Full title:R.H. JOHNSON COMPANY, a Partnership, et al., Petitioners, v. SECURITIES…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Apr 5, 1956

Citations

231 F.2d 523 (D.C. Cir. 1956)

Citing Cases

Moscarelli v. Stamm

District courts in other jurisdictions have held that churning as a deceptive device was included in the…

Lorenz v. Watson

Moreover, the decisions of the Commission in certain disciplinary proceedings also indicate that excessive…