# Securities and Exchange Commission v. Torr

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · January 18, 1937 · 87 F.2d 446

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650902

## Case

- **Full name:** SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. TORR Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** January 18, 1937
- **Citations:** 87 F.2d 446; 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2516
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hand
- **Judges:** Hand, Manton, Chase
- **Cited by:** 88 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650902

## Opinion text

L. HAND, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
It seems to me that the facts are undisputed even as regards the probability of a repetition of the wrong. The affidavit of Holohan, who was conducting the proceedings for the plaintiff, alleged that the defendant, Mann, had told him that he might extend the option for distributing the shares and that if they were not restrained, the defendants would continue business by the same methods as before. I cannot find any contradiction of this in the affidavits. It is quite true that the unverified answer of Torr, Mills and Mann alleges that the shares have all been “taken down” and that they have “desisted and refrained” from selling except through the Curb Exchange. That did indeed raise an issue, but it is not evidence of which the defendants may avail themselves. Union Bank v. Geary, 5 Pet. 99, 112 , 8 L.Ed. 60 ; Patterson v. Gaines, 6 How. 550, 588 , 12 L.Ed. 553 ; Stewart v. Allen (C.C.) 47 F. 399 . These decisions arose under the old rules, it is true, but the new have introduced no change; without the sanction of an oath a party’s pleading can be no more than a statement or forecast of his position. For these reasons I think that the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction pendente lite if the acts complained of were wrongs. On the merits I believe that they were and that substantially all the relief granted be-' low was proper; but, as my views are not to prevail, it does not seem necessary to state them except upon the point on which our decision is to turn.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650902. Public record. Not legal advice.