Falk v. J. N. Alexander Mercantile Co., 24592

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtSMITH, C. J.
Citation138 Miss. 21,102 So. 843
PartiesFALK v. J. N. ALEXANDER MERCANTILE CO. [*]
Decision Date16 February 1925
Docket Number24592

102 So. 843

138 Miss. 21

FALK
v.
J. N. ALEXANDER MERCANTILE CO.
[*]

No. 24592

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 16, 1925


Division A

Suggestion of Error Overruled March 16, 1925.

APPEAL from circuit court of Attala county, HON. T. L. LAMB, Judge.

Action by A. B. Falk against the J. N. Alexander Mercantile Company. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

[138 Miss. 22] J. D. Guyton and J. A. Teat, for appellant.

The defense made was under statute, section 2303, Code of 1906; section 1913, Hemingway's Code. Our supreme court has clearly and concisely stated the law of this case in Clay, Extr., v. Allen & Co., 63 Miss. 426. We have examined other decisions of our supreme court, all of which are consistent with, reaffirm and support the doctrine as stated in the Clay case. Telephone Company v. Littlejohn, 72 Miss. 1025, 18 So. 418; Lemonius v. Mayor & Co., 71 Miss. 514, 14 So. 33; Weld & Co. v. Austin, 107 Miss. 279, 65 So. 247; Asher v. Baxter, etc., 101 Miss. 36; Long v. Eaves, 99 Miss. 888, 56 So. 178; Cohn et al. v. Brinson, 112 Miss. 348; Gray v. Robinson, 95 Miss. 1. We call attention, also, to the text of 6 R. C. L. under "Contracts," sec. 185, and 20 A. L. R. 1422; Bolfing v. Schoener (1920), 144 Minn. 425, 175 N.W. 901; John Miller Co. v. Klovstad (1905), 14 N.D. 435, 105 N.W. 164.

The question involved in this case is simply hedging. The cotton market at the time that this transaction was made, was erratic, fluctuating and uncertain. The warehouse at Kosciusko was congested and delivery could not possibly be made. There was an embargo in effect and cotton could not be shipped to New Orleans until consent could be had. The question of delivering spot cotton was, therefore, a most difficult and serious problem.

The defendant, the J. N. Alexander Mercantile Company, desired to sell four hundred bales of cotton at the highest price, and instead an exceedingly high price, thirty-nine and five-tenths cents per pound and in order to make this sale of said cotton to Falk & Company, cotton brokers, desired to and did enter into an agreement to protect and assure Falk that he would not take a loss by reason of the purchase of the spot cotton under the circumstances at the price proposed to be agreed upon. The record defines the agreement entered into by and between the parties. [138 Miss. 23]

Falk, the cotton broker, plaintiff, proposed to and did buy the four hundred bales of cotton at thirty-nine and five tenths cents on the condition that January futures were to be sold by J. N. Alexander Mercantile Company on the New Orleans Cotton Exchange to protect Falk, cotton broker, plaintiff, against the fluctuation of the market. This was agreed to by the parties. It was a contract, legal and valid, one entered into by the parties for mutual benefit; binding upon both and intended to be a legitimate transaction and an arrangement by which the business could best be attended to.

It is shown that appellee had the spot cotton on hand; that he is a merchant who buys and sells cotton; that he had his cotton for no other purpose than to sell; that he, in fact, did sell it; that he sold the futures against the spot cotton had on hand at the time the futures were sold; that it was then contemplated by Falk and by the New Orleans brokers that this spot cotton would be delivered on these contracts; that as a matter of fact this cotton was shipped to New Orleans and delivered by Falk on futures he had sold which included the futures he sold for Alexander Mercantile Company; that the January futures with Lehman Stern & Company were transferred to March, and before March arrived the cotton was delivered, the actual spot cotton, among which was the four hundred bales of appellee; that appellee, after selling his January futures, sold the spot cotton to Falk, the same four hundred bales he had contracted to deliver on the January futures, promising Falk at the time that he would pay any losses on the futures and still protect him.

Of course it made no difference, so...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Alamaris v. Jno. F. Clark & Co, 30425
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 13, 1933
    ...95 Miss. 1. 48 So. 226: Ascher & Baxter v. Moyse & Company, 101 Miss. 36, 57 So. 299; Falk v. J. N. Alexander Mercantile Co., 102 So. 843. It has long since been the public policy of the state of Mississippi not only to condemn contracts commonly known as "future contracts"......
  • Stroud v. Loper, 34181
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 14, 1940
    ...(Miss.), 145 So. 893; Burgson & Co. v. Williams, Smithwick & Co. (Miss.), 121 So. 817; Faulk v. J. N. Alexander Mercantile Co., 138 Miss. 21, 102 So. 483; Cohn v. Brinson, 112 Miss. 348, 73 So. 59; Ascher & Baxter v. Moyse, 101 Miss. 36, 57 So. 298; Isaacs v. Silver Parry & ......
2 cases
  • Alamaris v. Jno. F. Clark & Co, 30425
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 13, 1933
    ...95 Miss. 1. 48 So. 226: Ascher & Baxter v. Moyse & Company, 101 Miss. 36, 57 So. 299; Falk v. J. N. Alexander Mercantile Co., 102 So. 843. It has long since been the public policy of the state of Mississippi not only to condemn contracts commonly known as "future contracts"......
  • Stroud v. Loper, 34181
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 14, 1940
    ...(Miss.), 145 So. 893; Burgson & Co. v. Williams, Smithwick & Co. (Miss.), 121 So. 817; Faulk v. J. N. Alexander Mercantile Co., 138 Miss. 21, 102 So. 483; Cohn v. Brinson, 112 Miss. 348, 73 So. 59; Ascher & Baxter v. Moyse, 101 Miss. 36, 57 So. 298; Isaacs v. Silver Parry & ......

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