The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-02-26
FUTURES.
ssThc Law Of Commerce Is the Law
or Honor.
Thomas Warren. Jr.. va. meyer, Wa'7
N %. Firth District Court.
Mo. lo.2O2 w. II. Kodg-
ers, Judge.

Ihay, boon requested ID rcducc 10 writing
nv reasona for Judgment. md IA tho onHe wa
fully argued orally and by briefa and ma th'
nuuse euss ,.fa considerations Of somo publ,
impnrtance, | havs concluded to nooede 10 tb'
request.
The petition AYERS Tint tho defendants aro in
debted to plaintiff Ia tho sum of tips. with pe
cent interest thereon from tho twenty, frat o
July. 1872 for thia: that plaintiff Deposited wilt
,iefandnnn Oh tho twenty .alxth Of May. lsfp. ID,
sald num ~ s,pt ~, rate heepin0 Tint Oh III,
twenty. fret II ] lly plaintiff demanded of III,
defendants the return of satd Gum. bu, that the
nss5 70 GsSS g" y"1 no
judgment against them Tor tho amount. with IN
taiaat.
Inn anawar danias generally ali Tho nllrgn-
tiona OF tho petition except na Hereinafter apo-
eiaiiy admitted. and especially dontoa til II the
sum OF tion. avotrea In tho uelii n to hnva boon
dep.aiteA With the doiendan'a on the twenty
HiAth oi May tRip was. ~ ~ avatTod In Tho peti
ttOn no d.pnaltni for ahte keeping ttnlmtta Int
tine sum stated was aepoatal with d"fendnn'a
by plaintiff at tho tim" apaelnoj. but nvatH that
defendants are not bankora engaged IN tho
business of receiving money on deroslt for
aafa AaorlnR but nrn cotton factora and cam
firm name nf Mayrr. WniH ~ In Now Or
leaAa anl New York; and tina tho aaih sum of
siab wns dsposllsh with them NJ tho time apoal-
fed by the plaintiff To necure them ngaInat losa
In II certain transaction. the particulars Of
which ARE ,herelnaiter act forth. ongaGed In by
them A.loly - tho factora md agents Of tho
nlaintiiH. and for Mia account.
Tint III the twanlv-rixth Of May. tRIp. Tho
day on which anid d"posit IL avarrot aud II nd
Of Meyer. Weie DO. purchased for account of
plaintiff. In aenordhhoe With Instructions ro-
ceivod from him, personally 100 baioa Of cot
ton. of 40 u"nnLa tr The bale. ~ ~ Y. 100 DOR
pound. deliverable ~ New York u, my tmo
during tho month Of August. 1870; that on Tho
aame day tho plaintiff was noillei by tee-
undersi cod and stipulated that tho purehnHe
WINS made subject to tho rulea aud conditions
81 TN New York Cotton Exchange. md that On
purchase, the plaintiff HiRned an Acceutnnca Of
tho purchase, subject to tho said conditions
and ruea. aud made tho aatd deposit Of slph with
defendants 10 aocuro them against loaa on hIa
account In aad transaction. tho said purchase
having bsan made on the credit Of their ilrm
for btu account. md ~ hie agents and factors.
Tho answer further nvafa that on tho four
teenth Of June laip. In nooordancn with tnaruo-
tions from tho plaintiff. defendants New York
houao sola tho said cotton for tho account of
plaintiff, ut IA Of 100 per pound. tho ruling mar
kst rnte Mt that time. involving not loaa on tho
transaction for account 81 nhintiH 81 taib 90.
interest IN tho transaction whatever. except az
to their commissions for buying and selling
amounting to s2s. for which sum tho plaintiff
them In the sum Of ~ expanae Of teleKraphin9
paid by them ior his noconni: that tho
net loas. commission aud telegraph axuenaas
amount to tho sum of fJsA 81: TINT s35p so
Of said sum waa money actually dlshurHed by
them for account OF plaintiff. and that aiter
credtinE HIN with tho said sum of fps, do
posted by him as atoresaid, there remains u
balance duo them by him Of Sisp 90. with inter
eat thereon at tho ratio On \ per cont p0r Rnnnm
from tho fourteenth OF June, 1879. until paid.
tiff In this suit, and Tor which they pray Iudg-
ment ngalnst him IN reconventl lon, ana for
Judgment rejecting hia claim against them.
Tho lnota ns oetabliphed In evidence we're In
accordance with tho cnso stated In tho anawar
Of defendant Tho rasc. rs hns boon before
elaboration find tho law applicable to the
case 40 exhaustively and accurately etateh In
tho printed hrlnf furnished by counsel for do
PENDANTS. that II Ia In tho main adopted M tho
opinion ~ tha court. Az the oulapt Or the dts
cussion II IA tmnorthnt 70 consider tho duns-
uon IA to urhdt late In to determino tho validity
OF tho transactions to which thia litigation re-
lates. aud regulate tho rights and liabilities Of
the parties.
Tho contracts for tho purchase and snlc OF
the cotton referred ~ III the pleahings warn in
tended ~ ~ performed and were performed In
Nav York. and. according tn tho doctrine enun-
governed by tho law of New York How la that
law TO DO ,tscertainnd and applied by this cour
The general rule IL TINT courts cannot notice
foreiEn laws unless proved ~ inrfs. Y, 2'S
And II II n rulo of pleading that plntnttT
must dlle0e every fact material to his case. IL
l.. 81,
absence Of such proof the rights of the parties
who clRim. and tho effect and validity Of In
strumonts executed under ihe laws Of another
Etnte must he determined hY our own. N. h.
So: A. ~: = A. iN: "a A, 9ni.
But our courts viii ludtcally notice that the
common law Ia the bnais Of tho IurispTudence
of II Particular State and what that law IL need
not he nverred or proved. but tho courts Will
ascertain for themselves hy examining tho
will look to English authorities Tor principles
of decision under that system. and our courts
are bound to notice those principles as laid
down In approved works. A. 2t4.
Our will luNintN1lv notirn TINT thn
law merchant prevails throughout tho Union
except III 40 far as modified III particular States
however. must be averred and proved rs IL fact
Anderson va. Folcar. II A. 80.
Tho law of Nav York. therefore, Of which this
court will take judicial notice. and by which tho
rights and liabilities Of tho phrtlea 10 this liixa-
ton M. ~ ha determined. IL the Jurisprudence
OF English common law and equity and OF the
by the Supreme Court Of this State In Smith vs.
Mechanics Bank. A.. CAB.
THE LAW OF COMMERCE. ~ THE LAW OF HONOR.
Tho courts will enforce tho payment Of debts
which are debts q honor under that law.
In Fareira vs.. Gahele. case recently decided
by the Supreme COURT OF Pennsylvania. and re-
ported In the twentieth Albany Law Journal
az follows Was this gambling or we wa ger
operation. which the law does not sanction and
Will not carry into elfecI2 Now wager may Do
late that they shall gain or lose upon the hap
pening OF an uncertain event In which they
have no interest; except that arising from
the possibility OF snch gain or loss This
may be illustrated BY an example: A and
b agree. Ia consideration OF Il premium
paid by Il, that II certain shin is lost at sea. A
shall pay he value of the ship. If b has no
interest IN the ship 1t Is wagering contract:
but Il has an interest and Will be a loser II
the ship Is wrecked. It Is n contract of indemni-
ty. and not a wager. So. II two men agree
that II coffee rises IN price ono 81 them shall
pay sum Of money to the other, It is = wager
Il they have no other interest in the coffee than
that growing out OF the contingency about
which they stipnlate. But 1t does not follow
that every contract which produces such re-
suit isa wager: the question is one OF inten-
ton rs deduced from facts and circumstances.
Let us suppose that agrees with b to buy a
thousand bushels of wheat at 81 per bushel. to
be delivered and paid for al the end OF thirty
days. II wheat rises In value. A will be
9 gamer. and If 1t goes lower he will
lose. but inasmuch as the apparent
object 81 the contract is the purchase or the
wheat. " IL not : gaming contract. Nor could
such contract be Justly regarded "a wager.
although when the time for the delivery of the
wheat arrived it was agreed that b should. In
stead OF forwarding the wheat 10 A. pay him the
damages 70 which he would be legally entitled
for . refusal 70 deliver that IL to say. the differ
tr.a thAa tiy,,,l ,S., u