Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1884-02-21

trine as laid down in Cannan VS.. Bryo
and Farcira VS.. Gabell, is in no manne
disturbed. The case simply decide
that If A. and B. jointly engage in aI
illegal transaction, such as making
wager upon some doubtful issue, by
which money is acquired and goes int
the possession of A. that A. must ac
count to b. for BIS share; but 1t doe.
not decide that if B. makes the wagel
for A. and advances the money which
is lost, that b. can recover from A. the
money so lost.
Chitty on Contracts, 5th Am. ed.
$50, says: money lent to and applied
by the borrower for the express purpose
of accomplishing an illegal object can
not be recovered. And therefore mon
ey lent for the purpose of settling losses
on Illegal stock -jobbing transaction be-
tween the borrower and third persons,
to which the lender was no party, can
not be recovered back by the lender, he
having full knowledge of the illegal
purpose to which the money was to he
applied. And money lent
to the borrower for the purpose of
gambling or playing at an illegal game
is not recoverable"
In the case of Justh VS.. Holiday,
supra, the question of agency was rails
ed, and it was claimed that the case
should be withdrawn from the opera
ton of the rule rs to wagering contracts
since the plaintiff was only the agent of
Custer to negotiate for stocks with other
persons who should be considered as
the principals who made the purchases;
but the court, considering the facts to
be as supposed, held that the circum-
stances would not prevent the defend
ant from interposing the illegality of
the transaction as a defense, and re-
ferred to hre Green, mira, and Gregory
VS.. Wandell, supra.
The liability of a principal to respond
to his broker or agent for advances
made upon an option contract, where no
delivery is contemplated may depend:
lst. Upon the statute prohibiting
the contract, whether the statute, as
that of Victorian, declares the contract |
void merely, or, like that of Ohio, de-
,lares it to be illegal.
I'd. Upon the guilty participation of
'he broker or agent in aiding the party
% violate the statute.
Contracts may be void, as under the
tatute of frauds, but not ''Negal," as in
imated in Powle VS.. Gum, Bing. w.
). 445, and any person who lends mon-
y to fulfil a contract void under the
tatutes Of fraud, could, of course recov-
r it back. But if the contracts be
made illegal, as in Ohio, when penalties
re affixed to the making of them, an
gent, who knowingly contributes by
money or services to enable his princi-
al to violate the law, cannot recover.
or this reason, one who lends a friend
honey to gamble with, knowing the
urpose, cannot recover the loan: Nc
-innell VS.. Robinson, 3 NJ. & w. 434;
White VS.. Buss, 3 Cush. 44S; became !
y statute, the gambling contract was
legal and not merely void. So, if an :
It makes future delivery contracts, ,
lthout intention to deliver, illegal, {
lie who knowingly lends or advances l
oney to enable another to pay up his !
sses sustained by such illegal contract, |
nnot recover it: Cdnnon VS.. Bryce. s
prd; DeBeynis vs.. Armistead, 10 Bing. )
5. ~ ~ t
In Green's case, Z Bissell, 33S, it was =
'ld that broker, or agent, of the e
lyer, who makes the bargain and pays e
e difference to the seller, knowing the v
aracter of the transaction, cannot re- =
Yer OF his principal the amount SO t
id. "
1T must be admitted that several l
nerican decisions hold that when v
oker has made contracts for the fu- n
re sale and delivery, on the order of b
principal, he may recover for his 81
IS ana disbursements, notwithstand- .!
: the principal did not intend to eth II
take or deliver according to the fl
ooker's contract, but merely to settle b.
differences of the maturity of the ~ a.
ltract; but in most or all of these f.
'es, it did not clearly appear. that the OF
'ker was aware of the intention of
principal. The most notable of
'se eases are: Lehman Bros. VS..
assberger, 2 Woods 554 and Clark vs., ~;
ss, 7 Bissell, 800. h,
sawyer VS.. Taggart, IS Am. l.. Regis W
222 decided by the Kentucky Court oe
Appeals, may be cited to show that a ~ ~
ker or agent may recover from his ht
ncipal for advances on stock jobbing, te
a careful examination of the case LIT
not sustain the claim. The court II,
'ressly says: "That an understand
between the vender and the pur-
ser, that the goods shall not be de-
red, but the one will pay and the
er will receive the difference between
contract price and the market price
the day of the maturity of the con- TIL
It, renders the contract a mere wa
But such must be the understand
OF both parties" Quoting from
ley vs.. Boynton, 79IlI. 353 utba in