Haven & Clements v. James

CourtUnited States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
Citation206 F. 683
PartiesHAVEN & CLEMENTS v. JAMES.
Decision Date21 June 1913

206 F. 683

HAVEN & CLEMENTS
v.

JAMES.

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia.

June 21, 1913


Brown & Randolph, Parker & Scott, and Spencer Atkinson, all of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.

Smith, Hammond & Smith, of Atlanta, Ga., and Charlton Battle, of Columbus, Ga., for defendant.

NEWMAN, District Judge.

The main argument of counsel for the defendant on this motion for a new trial was based on the fact that the court here called the attention of the jury to certain language in a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Board of Trade v. Christie Grain & Stock Co., 198 U.S. 236, 25 Sup.Ct. 637, 49 L.Ed. 1031. The quotation was really taken from the language embodied by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York in the opinion in the case of Springs et al. v. James, 137 A.D. 110, the quotation being on page 121, 121 N.Y.Supp. 1054. The court stated in the charge here, after making this quotation:

'That is to say, I understand this method of doing business to be treated by the courts, both the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of New York, as an entirely legitimate method of transacting this part of the business.'

The Supreme Court of New York, in the same opinion, quoted also to precisely the same effect from the case of Clews v. Jamieson, 182 U.S. 461, 21 Sup.Ct. 845, 45 L.Ed. 1183.

The decision by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York just referred to was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of New York, 202 N.Y. 603, 96 N.E. 1131.

Examining the language to which counsel calls attention in Board of Trade v. Christie Grain and Stock Co., supra, on page 250 of 198 U.S., on page 639 of 25 S.Ct. (49 L.Ed. 1031), as follows:

'We speak only of the contracts made in the pits, because in them the members are principals. The subsidiary rights of their employers where the members buy as brokers we think it unnecessary to discuss.'

-- I am unable to see that this has any effect whatever on the matter involved here. If the contracts between the principals were legal-- that is, if Haven & Clements had contracts that were valid and binding [206 F. 684] as against them with other members of the Exchange, and paid out money, as they did, because of their liability on such contracts-- it would be singular indeed if they could not recover the same from their principal, Mr. James.

In this case the court endeavored to instruct the jury in accordance...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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