Gray v. Robinson

Mississippi Supreme Court March 15, 1909

Gray v. Robinson, 95 Miss. 1 (Miss. 1909)

48 So. 226

Ier, Iitfield, Nletoi, Took

Opinion of the Court

Wi-iitfield, O. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is held in Montjoy v. Delta Bank, 76 Miss. 402, 24 South. 870, that “a contract violative of public policy, or of a positive rule of law, or against good morals, will not be enforced, even at the suit of an innocent transferee, although it be evidenced *6by a promissory note payable to bearer.” It was held in Campbell v. National Bank, 74 Miss. 526, 21 South. 400, 23 South. 25, that “a contract for the payment of differences in prices, arising out of the rise and fall in the market price above or below the contract price, is a wager on the future price of the commodity, and is therefore invalid.” It is perfectly plain, from the testimony in this case, that the contracts here were exactly of this latter kind. Not a bale of actual cotton is shown to have been delivered in the four years of dealing.

The judgment is affirmed.

Nletoi-ier, J.; took no part in the decision of this cause.

Reference

Full Case Name: William C. Gray v. Samuel H. Robinson
Cited By: 4 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Gambling. Futures. Wagering Contract. Cade 1892, § 2117. Promissory note. Consideration. Innocent holder. Under Code 1892, § 2117, providing that contracts for the purchase of “futures,” wagering contracts, shall be unenforceable and shall not be a valid consideration for any promise, a note payable to bearer given for such purchases cannot be enforced against the maker, even by an innocent transferee for value. 2. Same. Peremptory instruction. Where from the whole testimony reasonable minds could not differ about the fact that the note sued upon was given for a balance arising from a dealing in cotton “futurés,” and neither, party contemplated an actual delivery, a peremptory instruction forbidding a recovery on the note is justified, although one of the parties affirmed that the other could have demanded and would have received the cotton had he required it, and there was printed on the written confirmation of the contract a false statement to the effect that the parties contemplated an actual delivery.