Campbell v. New Orleans National Bank

CourtMississippi Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWOODS, J.
Citation21 So. 400,74 Miss. 526
Decision Date15 February 1897
PartiesCHARLES CAMPBELL v. NEW ORLEANS NATIONAL BANK

21 So. 400

74 Miss. 526

CHARLES CAMPBELL
v.

NEW ORLEANS NATIONAL BANK

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 15, 1897


October, 1896

FROM the circuit court of Montgomery county HON. C. H. CAMPBELL, Judge.

The New Orleans National Bank sued appellant upon a judgment. The defendant in the court below filed two pleas, each averring that the judgment sued upon was rendered by default upon a promissory note executed in this state to J. H. Allen & Co., to reimburse them for money paid for defendant, and as defendant's agents, in a gambling transaction on the rise and fall of prices, commonly called dealing in futures. A demurrer to the plea first filed was sustained, and then the second one was presented, varying the defense only in form, and, a demurrer being sustained to the second plea, the defendant below declined to plead further. Judgment having gone against defendant, he appealed.

Reversed and remanded.

Sweatman, Trotter & Knox, for appellant.

That the contracts mentioned in the pleas were wagering contracts, and as such utterly void, is clear. Code 1880, § 990; code 1892, § 2114; Clay v. Allen, 63 Miss. 426; Lawson on Contracts, sec. 288; Tiedeman on Commercial Paper, sec. 189. And equally so are contracts made for the advancing of money knowingly to be used in gambling. Code 1880, §990; code 1892, § 2114; Clay v. Allen, 63 Miss. 426. The fact that a note was given in settlement of losses, that the note was transferred and a judgment obtained thereon, makes no difference under our law. 12 Smed. & M., 571; Ib. 157; 55 Miss. 244. The act of 1882 (Laws 1882, p. 140) did not repeal code 1880, § 990. This act of 1882 was intended to enlarge the statutes against gambling in futures, and not to restrict them.

Hill & Sisson, on same side.

The judgment sued upon is not conclusive against the pleas. A judgment upon a gambling contract, under our law, is utterly void, even if rendered in favor of an assignee, and can have no legal effect whatever. Lucus v. Waul, 12 Smed. & M., 157; Smyther v. Keys, 1 George, 179; McAuley v. Mardis, 1 Walker, 307; Crawford v. Storm, 41 Miss. 540. The "buying of futures" was actually prohibited by code 1880, § 990, and there is no inconsistency between that section and the act of 1882.

Somerville & McLean, for appellee.

Is the judgment of 1889 for money lost at a "wager, " and therefore void? § 2114, code of 1892 (§ 990, code 1880). Is it a judgment upon a contract for purchase of a commodity to be delivered at a future day, etc.? § 2116. If the latter, was not the cause of action merged in the judgment, and can there be any inquiry as to the original consideration? The only...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Tiley v. Grenada Building & Loan Ass'n, 25480
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1926
    ...68; Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 268; Cayce v. Stovall, 50 Miss. 396; Smith v. Vicksburg, 64 Miss. 615; Campbell v. New Orleans Nt'l Bank, 74 Miss. 526, 23 So. 25; Owens v. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co., 74 Miss. 821, 21 So. 244; Richards v. Patterson, 30 Miss. 583; McAfee v. Southern, 36 Miss. 669; Madi......
  • Ascher v. Edward Moyse & Co., 14,853
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 29, 1912
    ...Exchange, 85 Tenn. 572; Lemonius v. Mayer, 71 Miss. 514; Gray v. Robinson, 95 Miss. 1; Virden v. Murphy, 78 Miss. 515; Campbell v. Bank, 74 Miss. 526; Violet v. Margold, 27 So. 875; M. & O. Railroad Company v. Wimer, 49 Miss. 738; 36 Cyc., p. 1079; Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 268; Myers v. Mars......
  • Alamaris v. Jno. F. Clark & Co, 30425
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 13, 1933
    ...Cohn et al. v. Brinson, 73 So. 59. The buying of cotton futures is a wager. Clay v. Allen & Co., 61 Miss. 426; Campbell v. National Bank. 74 Miss. 526. 21. So. 400. 23 So. 25; Gray v. Robinson. 95 Miss. 1. 48 So. 226: Ascher & Baxter v. Moyse & Company, 101 Miss. 36, 57 So. 299; Falk v. J. ......
  • Carpenter v. Beal-McDonnell & Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • March 4, 1915
    ...court has not overlooked the fact that in Minzesheimer v. Doolittle, 60 N.J.Eq. 394, 45 A. 611, and Campbell v. New Orleans National Bank, 74 Miss. 526, 21 So. 400, 23 So. 25, the courts refused to enforce judgments of courts of other states based on such transactions upon the ground that t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Tiley v. Grenada Building & Loan Ass'n, 25480
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1926
    ...68; Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 268; Cayce v. Stovall, 50 Miss. 396; Smith v. Vicksburg, 64 Miss. 615; Campbell v. New Orleans Nt'l Bank, 74 Miss. 526, 23 So. 25; Owens v. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co., 74 Miss. 821, 21 So. 244; Richards v. Patterson, 30 Miss. 583; McAfee v. Southern, 36 Miss. 669; Madi......
  • Ascher v. Edward Moyse & Co., 14,853
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 29, 1912
    ...Exchange, 85 Tenn. 572; Lemonius v. Mayer, 71 Miss. 514; Gray v. Robinson, 95 Miss. 1; Virden v. Murphy, 78 Miss. 515; Campbell v. Bank, 74 Miss. 526; Violet v. Margold, 27 So. 875; M. & O. Railroad Company v. Wimer, 49 Miss. 738; 36 Cyc., p. 1079; Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 268; Myers v. Mars......
  • Alamaris v. Jno. F. Clark & Co, 30425
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 13, 1933
    ...Cohn et al. v. Brinson, 73 So. 59. The buying of cotton futures is a wager. Clay v. Allen & Co., 61 Miss. 426; Campbell v. National Bank. 74 Miss. 526. 21. So. 400. 23 So. 25; Gray v. Robinson. 95 Miss. 1. 48 So. 226: Ascher & Baxter v. Moyse & Company, 101 Miss. 36, 57 So. 299; Falk v. J. ......
  • Carpenter v. Beal-McDonnell & Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • March 4, 1915
    ...court has not overlooked the fact that in Minzesheimer v. Doolittle, 60 N.J.Eq. 394, 45 A. 611, and Campbell v. New Orleans National Bank, 74 Miss. 526, 21 So. 400, 23 So. 25, the courts refused to enforce judgments of courts of other states based on such transactions upon the ground that t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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