Browne v. Thorn
| Decision Date | 13 November 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 88,88 |
| Citation | 67 L.Ed. 171,260 U.S. 137,43 S.Ct. 36 |
| Parties | BROWNE v. THORN et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. James B. McDonough, of Ft. Smith, Ark., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Ira D. Oglesby, of Ft. Smith, Ark., and L. C. Going, of Memphis, Tenn., for defendants in error.
This is a suit brought by the respondents, cotton brokers, to recover the balance of an account for the purchase and sale of two thousand bales of cotton on the New Orleans Cotton Exchange. At a first trial a verdict was directed for the defendant on the ground that broker's seller's slips coupled with oral evidence that corresponding buyer's slips were executed, or vice versa, were not competent evidence of the transactions, under the United States Cotton Futures Act. Act of August 11, 1916, c. 313, part A, § 4, 39 Stat. 446, 476 (Comp. St. § 6309d). The judgment was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals after a very satisfactory discussion. Thorn v. Browne, 257 Fed. 519, 168 C. C. A. 469. There followed a second trial in which the verdict was for the plaintiff and a judgment, sustained by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Browne v. Thorn, 272 Fed. 950, that is brought here by writ of error, supplemented by a petition for a writ of certiorari. There is no ground for the writ of error on the record, although the plaintiff in error now, in view of Hill v. Wallace, 259 U. S. 44, 42 Sup. Ct. 453, 66 L. Ed. 822, May 15, 1922, argues that the Cotton Futures Act is void except in the taxing provision enacted as an alternative to compliance with its regulations. A petition for certiorari was granted at the October Term, 1920. 256 U. S. 689, 41 Sup. Ct. 625, 65 L. Ed. 1172.
The first ground relied upon for the petition is that the transactions were gambling transactions. That was the petitioner's contention at the trial, but to put it at the lowest, there was evidence to the contrary, the question was left to the jury with instructions that if the plaintiff knew that the defendant had no intention to deliver or receive the actual cotton they could not recover, and the jury found for the plaintiffs. The defendant contended that his undisclosed intention was enough to defeat the plaintiff's claims; but that is not the law. It is objected that the judge instructed the jury that hedging was lawful, hedging being explained as a means by which manufacturers and others who have to make contracts of purchase or sale in advance secure themselves against the fluctuations of the market by counter contracts. Prima...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sargent v. Whitfield v. Company
...365, 28 S. Ct. 512, 52 L.Ed. 835, 14 Ann. Cas. 981; Duel v. Hollins, 241 U.S. 523, 36 S. Ct. 615, 60 L.Ed. 1143; Browne v. Thorn, 260 U.S. 137, 43 S. Ct. 36, 67 L.Ed. 171; Gorman v. Littlefield, 229 U.S. 19, 33 S. Ct. 690, 57 L.Ed. But is is argued that when the identical certificates turne......
-
Uhlmann Grain Co. v. Dickson
...U. S. 236, 25 S. Ct. 637, 638, 49 L. Ed. 1031; Clews v. Jamieson, 182 U. S. 461, 21 S. Ct. 845, 45 L. Ed. 1183; Browne v. Thorn, 260 U. S. 137, 43 S. Ct. 36, 67 L. Ed. 171; Board of Trade of Chicago v. Olsen, 262 U. S. 1, 43 S. Ct. 470, 67 L. Ed. 839; Gettys v. Newburger (C. C. A.) 272 F. 2......
-
Sargent v. Whitfield & Co.
... ... Shaw, 209 U.S. 365, 28 S.Ct. 512, 52 ... L.Ed. 835, 14 Ann. Cas. 981; Duel v. Hollins, 241 ... U.S. 523, 36 S.Ct. 615, 60 L.Ed. 1143; Browne v ... Thorn, 260 U.S. 137, 43 S.Ct. 36, 67 L.Ed. 171; ... Gorman v. Littlefield, 229 U.S. 19, 33 S.Ct. 690, 57 ... L.Ed. 1047 ... ...
-
South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Weil
... ... U.S. v. New York Coffee & Sugar Exchange, 263 U.S ... 611, 44 S.Ct. 225, 68 L.Ed. 475; Browne v. Thorn, ... 260 U.S. 137, 43 S.Ct. 36, 67 L.Ed. 171; Board of Trade ... v. Christie Grain & Stock Co., 198 U.S. 236, 25 S.Ct ... 637, 49 L.Ed ... ...