Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-04-17
FUTURE DEALINGS.
The United States Supreme Court De.
eides that a Broker is Entitled
to Compensation for
Services Rendered and Money Advanced
Customer Ia the Course OF
Business Transactions.

WAsHISeToN, April 16.-A decision was
today rendered by the United States court
in the brokerage Gaze OF John II. Rountree,
plaintiff in error, against Ernest T. Smith
and NJ. G. Lightner, in error to the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Western
District Of Wisconsin,. This was a suit
growing out OF spsculations in domestic pro-
ducs in the city of Chicago upon margins"
1t was brought by the firm of Smith & Light
ner, brokers, against their customer, John
H. Rounlree, TO recover the balance alleged
to be due them on account OF purchases and
by bis order. R1untree set up the
defense that the brokers had not actually
bought or SOLD for him the commodities
specified, but had merely speculsted in
"opiions" on his account; that these "oplions''
we're nothing but gambling Contracts or bets
on the future prices of the various articles of
produce TO which they related; that they
were not designed to be actually performed by
delivery, but the differences were to be ad-
iasted and payments made and accepted
the contract price and the market price
at the dates fixed for delivery, aud that,
finally, thes. contracts we're illegal and void
The plaintiff offered 40 proof that the par
tlcular Contracts in controversy were really
be,s on the future price, but he did offer TO
show that very large proportion of all con-
trscis made by members of the Chicago
/ Board of Trade for the sale of produce were
settled by the payment of the differences;
tb st nothing else was expected, and that the
proportion OF such betting contracts,
in which merchs 1dise was neither ex-
pected tr desired, was so great in
comparison with bona fds contracts as
TO justify the inference that the contracts
% ade for him by his brokers were of a
gambling kind. The court held that evil
dence OF what other people intended by
other contracts of a similar character, how.
ever numerous, is not sufficient of itself to
prove that the parties TO these contracts in
tended TO violate the law or 10 justify jury
in making such presumption. at is alec to
be observed" the court says, "that the
plaintiffs 10 this c1se are not suing on the con-
tracts, but for services performed and money
advanced for the defendant at his request,
aud though 1t is possible that they might,
under the circumstances, be so connected
with the immortality OF the contract as to be
ny II, lucy hOt III tue
same position as party suing for the
forcement OF an original agreement" The
judgment of the Circuit Court in favor of
he brokers is affirmed, with interest. The
opinion was by Justice Miller.
RAILROAD TAX CASE.
A decision was also rendered by the court
to-day in the railroad tax Gaze of the Little
Miami, Columbus & Xenis Railroad Com
pany, plaintiff in error, against the United
States, in error, to the Circuit Court of the
Unt.dStstes for the Southern District OF Ohio
This was a suit brought by the United States
to recover from the railroad company the tax
of Eve per cent. on the alleged profits Of the
company carried 10 account of any fund or
used in the construction"-a tax authorized
by the act of June 80, 1864, as amended by
the sct of July Is, 1866. The judgment Of
the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause
remanded, with Instructions TO make certain
deductions claimed by the company. Opinion
by Chief Justice Waite.