The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1898-03-08
JUDGE SPEER'S DECISION.
WAS IN DIRECT LINE WITH THAT
OF JUSTICE JACKSON.


The Latter Quoted From n Former
President of The New York Cotton
Exchange in Criticising Judge
speer's Ruling--NO Contention in
the WaIdrOn and fainter Case
That The Cotton Was tn Be Actual
Iy DeIfvered-Contract Was For
Actual Delivery i'm the Case OF Bibh
vs.. AIleH-A Rule of the New York
Cotton Exchange in Point.
In the last issue of the New York Jour
nal of Commerce appears an article which
discusses and quotes comments upon Judge
Emory Speers recent decision. in The case
OF Waldron & Tantor against James II.
Johnston, relative 10 transactions in cot
ton futures, where it is established that
there is no intention on the part Of the
parties to the transaction to receive or de-
liver the cotton bought or sold. Judge
Speer's decision was against the recovery
of commissions or advances by the pain
tiffs.
The article quoted Henry Hentz, a form
err president of the New York Cotton Ex-
change who expresses some surprise at
the decision of Judge Speer, and seeks to
compare it to the decision OF Justice Jack
son Of the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case of B. Il. Bibb vs.. r. u.
Allen & Co. which he considered at va
rance with the position taken by Judge
Speer.
A representative of the Morning News
called on Judge Speer yesterday, showed
him the article. and asked him for a state
unent with regard 10 it.
This article" Judge Speer said, us an
Illustration of the error into which gen
tlemen of the press sometimes fall in their
reports of a judicial decision from a mis-
understanding OF the matter really in is
sue. Unfortunately, the official reporter
was absent when this decision was render
ed, or doubtless il would have been cor
rectly reported, and no erroneous impress
sion would have gone abroad.
Instead of conflicting with the decis-
ions of the United States Supreme Court,
and particularly with that of MIR. Justice
Jackson in Bibb vs.. Allen, 149th L. s.,
page $50. it is strictly in accordance with
them. IN that case it was clearly shown
that there was no agreement or under
standing between the plaintiffs and de-
PENDANTS that the cotton sold for future
delivery was not in fact to be actually de-
livered. l quote from the opinion. The
learned justice also said: 1t was also
testified by both the plaintiffs and the de-
PENDANT Bib that there was no under
standing or agreement either express or
implied, between them at the time of en-
tering on the transactions or during their
progress, that the cotton sold for account
of the principals was not to be delivered
at the time stipulated in the contracts of
sale made for their account.
Judge Jackson continues: 1t is not ques-
toned that if the transactions in which
The parties are engaged are illegal. the
agent cannot recover either commissions
for services rendered therein, or for adj
vances and disbursements by him for his
principal, the reason for this rule being
that in such Illegal transactions of which
the agent has knowledge, he is regarded
as particeps criminis, which precludes him
from the recovery Of either commissions
or advances,
THE suit here.Y Judge Speer said, was
by a firm of brokers for their services
and advances in certain transactions in
futures which are described by the audi
tor as follows: l find that the defendant
during the same period employed the plain
tiffs 10 make contracts for the future de-
livery of cotton in New York, with the in
tention of realizing upon the differences
in values arising under said contracts IN
the New York market before the time for
the delivery of said cotton arrived. l fur
Their find that he never intended to'dellver
or receive cotton under said contracts, but
relied on his agents 10 avoid this con-
tingency.
:" i find that the defendants intention
not 10 deliver or receive the cotton, but
10 realize on the differences in values, was
known to the plaintiffs, and that they so
managed his business as to carry out this
intention and did, so far as he was con-
cerned, avoid the receipt and delivery OF
cotton
Now" said Judge Speer, this partIc-
nlar finding of the auditor was not ex-
copied TO, and il presented the facts upon
which the court made its ruling. In the
case before the Supreme Court it will be
& observed that il was not in dispute thar
the cotton was to be actually delivered.
In the case before this court it is equally
plain not only that the defendant UNDER
stood 1t was not 10 be delivered, but the
plaintiffs also, and abe latter did all they
could to carry out the defendants pur-
pose. which was merely to speculate on
differences in values depending upon the
rise or fall of the market without involv-
ing as between the parties before the
court, any cotton whatever. This is de-
nounced by the Georgia statute and by the
general law.
''Of course" Judge Speer said, 81 do not
mean to discuss the correctness of my de-
cision, but merely at the request of the
Morning News to make plain what the de-
cision was. 1t was thought, however, by
me to be demanded by an important line
of decisions produced in argument. both
from the Supreme Court of the United
States and from the Supreme Court of
Georgia. and moreover indeed. if Justice
Jackson was correct in the decision in Bibb
VS. Allen. above quoted by the great cot
ton exchange itself, for the learned JUS
tice says, on page 491: In addition to this,
IL Is shown that the rules and regulations
of the New York Cotton Exchange recog-
nize no contracts, except for the sale and
purchase of cotton to be actually deliv-
cred"
MONEY KEEPS COMING