Fenner & Beane v. Holt, No. 4211.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtWALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit
Citation2 F.2d 253
PartiesFENNER & BEANE v. HOLT.
Decision Date29 October 1924
Docket NumberNo. 4211.

2 F.2d 253 (1924)

FENNER & BEANE
v.
HOLT.
*

No. 4211.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

October 29, 1924.


John E. Hall and Warren Grice, both of Macon, Ga., and L. C. Going, of Memphis, Tenn. (Hall, Grice & Bloch, of Macon, Ga., on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.

Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit by a firm of cotton brokers, members of the New Orleans Cotton Exchange, for advances which they claim they made for the account of the defendant in executing his orders on the exchange for the purchase and sale of cotton for future delivery. The defense was that, at the time the orders were given, the parties did not intend that the cotton should be paid for and delivered, but only intended that one party should pay to the other the difference between the contract price and the market price when the time fixed for delivery arrived. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant. The only assignment of error relied on is that upon the whole evidence the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the plaintiffs.

J. J. Barrett and R. J. Willingham were engaged in Barrett's name at Macon, Ga., in the cotton brokerage business. They sent any orders received by them from their customers to the plaintiffs at New Orleans, and became entitled to one-half of the brokerage commissions. By signs upon the windows of his office, by newspaper advertisements, and by the stationery which he used in correspondence both with the plaintiffs and others, Barrett represented himself to be the Georgia representative of the plaintiffs. The defendant entered his orders at Macon with Barrett for transmission to the plaintiffs. He admitted that on several occasions he gave orders direct without the knowledge of Barrett; but these transactions are not here involved, because this suit is brought only upon orders which one of the plaintiffs testified came through Barrett. The contracts were formally entered into, and each of them provided that actual delivery or receipt of the cotton was contemplated by the parties; but the defendant testified he notified Barrett that he (the defendant) did not want any cotton. Barrett replied that the plaintiffs thoroughly understood that. It is true the defendant also testified that the plaintiffs would transfer any orders which matured to a later month; but, according to defendant's testimony, it was understood between him and Barrett that eventually the contracts would...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Walter E. Heller & Co. v. Aetna Business Credit, Inc., No. 61272
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • April 9, 1981
    ...Meats v. Hertz Corporation, 134 Ga.App. 381 at 391 (215 S.E.2d 10); Hays v. Jordan, 85 Ga. 741 at 748 (11 S.E. 833); Fenner & Bean v. Holt, 2 F.2d 253 (1924) (5th Cir.) cert. denied 267 U.S. 605, (45 S.Ct. 508, 69 L.Ed. 810) which holds: 'However, forms are not important, Courts will look t......
  • Beane v. Calhoun, No. 26367.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • December 4, 1937
    ...commonly called "dealing in futures on margins." Under the act of 1929, such dealing is not unlawful. In Fenner & Beane v. Holt (C. C.A.) 2 F.2d 253, also cited by counsel for Calhoun, the customer testified, in effect, that he had no intention of accepting a delivery of the cotton and that......
  • Fenner & Beane v. Calhoun, 26367.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • December 4, 1937
    ...commonly called "dealing in futures on margins." Under the act of 1929, such dealing is not unlawful. In Fenner & Beane v. Holt (C. C.A.) 2 F.2d 253, also cited by counsel for Calhoun, the customer testified, in effect, that he had no intention of accepting a delivery of the cotton and that......
3 cases
  • Walter E. Heller & Co. v. Aetna Business Credit, Inc., No. 61272
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • April 9, 1981
    ...Meats v. Hertz Corporation, 134 Ga.App. 381 at 391 (215 S.E.2d 10); Hays v. Jordan, 85 Ga. 741 at 748 (11 S.E. 833); Fenner & Bean v. Holt, 2 F.2d 253 (1924) (5th Cir.) cert. denied 267 U.S. 605, (45 S.Ct. 508, 69 L.Ed. 810) which holds: 'However, forms are not important, Courts will look t......
  • Beane v. Calhoun, No. 26367.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • December 4, 1937
    ...commonly called "dealing in futures on margins." Under the act of 1929, such dealing is not unlawful. In Fenner & Beane v. Holt (C. C.A.) 2 F.2d 253, also cited by counsel for Calhoun, the customer testified, in effect, that he had no intention of accepting a delivery of the cotton and that......
  • Fenner & Beane v. Calhoun, 26367.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • December 4, 1937
    ...commonly called "dealing in futures on margins." Under the act of 1929, such dealing is not unlawful. In Fenner & Beane v. Holt (C. C.A.) 2 F.2d 253, also cited by counsel for Calhoun, the customer testified, in effect, that he had no intention of accepting a delivery of the cotton and that......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT