The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-02-26
NEW ORLEANS DEMOCRAT THURSDAY FEBRUARY g. 1880
Int. aud. M n consequences there could be no
naturalization IF ban N ptrv

AAAAA
lat, aud. ~ consequences. there could be NJ
1 adjudication Of bank ruptcv.
THE fa,,ts touching ths consideration DC TIL
4 note appeared from the blu Of exceptions to b
these: Lehman Brothera were cotton faetor
times employed by htraHHherEer to buy mud anI
cotton for him Tor future delivery. II was tn
understanding hn'waan AtraatllarHar md Ieh
man Brothers that In all salna rurahnaaa y
| cotton NY them. fpr him, Mryn Wds ~ be W
del,raru but that difference should bo paid
etcert rhen aper,dl o'shnotions were elv"n tore
| reiy" OF deliver euliou. Jhanonfacts wore lna1'
by Lehmnn Hrothars IN the city Of New YORK.
ana according to tho rules Of tho Cotton TX
change " tha' city. By those rmloa, which w"''
4 given III evidence. an actual delivery Of cotot
In provided for and required In every coh',n't
unless Waived In aome mode by tho suhee1uan
conduct or assent Of both part tes. or unless tn
4 party having tho option to make or require ~
nctun delivery fnlla or declines to oSaIrlao nj
4 option VI u Insist npon delivery. Tho con
alteration Of the n"ta upon whtnl NE prnoa"h
| inR waa hpand arose ont ~ tho transactions o
| htraHaherRor in auoh cotton rpnttnr's. aud In
| rluded loasea ON The contract pal by Lehman
I,rohera for araa here"r. mud their c.mmi',
| aiona for buying and anlliug
Judge Woods. IN h'a opinion. j. nv. sara
w. muat look IL tho rnntrne, FIR future fntio,
M originally made. To determine its legality o,
ia4ailty. Hlrnaabefger toaiitiea. aud III thta h'
IN upnoutrndinted. that " was the understanding
halwenn him and Lehman Brothers that IN MI
| enle. or purrhaa"a of cotton by 'hcm fer hin
for future delivery no cotton should ~ hrtunll y
received rr delivered, but only ihs differences
paid. except when sueriR Instructions were
record shows TINT he did. on moro than ono
occasion. "lont TO deliver cotton. II he
raaeivnd tho opiion to receive or deliver the
contract was loyal ~ al roap"otH, oven though
10 might have had purpose IN hia own
mind not ~ receive or deliver. and had nnmmu-
niaatni thn' purpose ~ his RaantH. Tho lu"a-
ton Ia: Did ho communicate that purpoar to
the parties not named with whom ho con
trnetedi There Is no evidence that he did. On
tho face NJ his contract hn binds himHolf 10 do
liver cotton. and tho other pRity blnd. himself
To receive ~, rev. what effect can tho mem "
purpose ~ HtrRsHperEer To pay or demand dir
farannss inaiend Of delivering the cotton have
known to tho other contracting patty Here ~
no hot or wager.
4 l,nt tho relation botwaon tho plaintiff IA
this rnRn aud tho defendants II not that Of buyer
aud 40 lnr, but uf principal md agent, ina waa
the relation no, weeu RtraasberEer aud Lehman
Brothers In the case Just reterrod to.
In auoh n Oaaa thu contract bntwaan tho urln
riual aud agent, mndo after the Illegal trnnHac-
lions arc nloaod. although Y may .aprng from
them ana ~ the result OF them. u binding
VA. llanDny. Tenn. 4ia: Owen vi. Daves. l
Bagley 5ib: Armstrong Va, Toler. II Wheat 2t.
Tho law Of L'nisl , relating to tho ,ranaae,
accord with thai Of England and " NV York
The law merchant rosni Two ~ sales VI personal
nizna aud adminla'orod In England aud Now
York. In renognisad and Administered In Louis
lana. Aud tho statutory law of tho State, lke
that of New York aud no statute sand Wet o.
100. dona not forbid under y penalty tho volun-
tAry payment Of wagera ~ settlement Of differ
onena. arising ont nf Wagering contracts mado
under tho form OF sales Tor future delivery
Such contracts wore known In the Roman civil
law. ind are known In tho law of Louiatana. M
aloatory contracts. y, q. Art 2ps2. rho aleatory
contract II n mutual agreement, Of which tho
ntTeeta with respect ~ tho aivant goa aud
loHaaa. whether to all tho parties or to one or
more Of them, depend on m uncertain event.
haze, ,,,lI 4
paymeut OF what has boon won Mt gaming or by
bet. except for games tending to promote
skin II tho use q arms. md foot. hoise ana
Arr apsi Ii all casca Ia which tho Inv refuses
hn action 10 tho winnor. II aao refusea to suffer
the .loHer to ,reelai N what he has voluntarily
paid. unoaa there has boon. on tho part OF tho
winner. fraud. deceit or awin.ilnR.
To conclude. |. appoara from oil tho authori-
!ioa That tho Ataie 81 Tho Inv IA Englan and tho
United States relative 70 transactions IL 'fn-
turea. or sRlO for future delivery. IN M follows:
That whore 1t Ia shown that It. IL agreed and UNI
derstood between tho PARTIES, ench being cog
nzant of tho intent of tho other TINT tho form
OF contract Of snle for future delivery shall bo
uaod 70 cover Nero wager ~ to tho difference
Of price stipulated TN tho contract aud this mar
kot prico nj the futu timo named for delivery
the contract ns hetween the pnrties IL void !:
aud neither. can invoke tho aid OF tho law
tn enforce tho contract nHninst tho other
Tint II either party voluntarily pays tho
waRor aud aettlos tho dir1rsnce II IL II
valid payment, nEalnst which tho Inv Will not
tnely underatood between tho phrtioa that tho
form Of n contract OF sale IL Il nero cover for n
wager b@tween them nto the rise or fall Of
prices. II In n valid contract. whatever may have
boon tho secret intention or pnfpoae Of either
or both of the parties ~ the time Of entering
Into tho contract. That upon tho fane 81
the parties respectively have tho right to
demand appetite performance at tho time
!" nax"n ar tho 10 "
aud TINT tho measure ~ such damages In the
difference between Tho price stipulated III tho
contract aud the market prire Ut tho time nxnd
for delivery. and that such right can only be
waived by agreement OF both parties. That
where II contract of sale for future delivery has
been made. ana whore " Tho timo q the making
VI such contract thnro Yna ~ agreement thht
tho parties should not claim specific perform
nnce. subsequent ngroament to sntla tho
transaction by the payment Of difference be-
tho mnrk ot price ut tho time OF tho settlement IL
y valid agreement. and that money duo
law Ia m action batwnen the parties to the ori-
Gnal contract That whore principal ON
ploys an agent to make Tor his account con
tract Of sale for future delivery upon the credit
o, tho agent. and deposits with the agent money
to secure him against future loss. and loss IL
incurred n the transaction ~ excess Of tho
amount deposited. and tho agent. under instruc-
ton from tho principal. pays tho entire loss
the agent IL entitled to recover from tho nrinci-
pal not only the sum paid on account OF tho on
cess OF loss over tho deposit. with interest but
also tho customary commissions and charges.
II IL therefore ordorcd. nd,u,god and decreed
that PLAINTIFFS demand De rejected. ana that
there be judgment In favor of defendant md
plaintiffs In reconvontion. Meyer. Weis II Co..
and against Thomas Warren. Jr.. for tho full
amount claimed by Thorn In reeonveniIon. to
wit. tho sum Of $3.50 50. with interest thereon at
the rate Of eight Dor cent per annum. from the
fourteenth or june 1879. until paid. and all
costs
f. W. Baker for Warren. Kelly 4 Lazarus for
Meyer. Weis 4 Co.
STATE HOUSE NOTES.
Restitution.