Hubbard v. Sayre

• Decision Date: 04 February 1895
• Citation: 105 Ala. 440,17 So. 17
• Parties: HUBBARD ET AL. v. SAYRE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

17 So. 17

105 Ala. 440

HUBBARD ET AL. v. SAYRE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 4, 1895

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; Thomas M. Arrington, Judge.

Bill by Ella A. Sayre against Hubbard, Price & Co. to cancel and set aside a deed of conveyance of her property given in payment of an alleged gambling debt of her husband, Calvin Sayre. From a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

W. A Gunter, for appellants.

Tompkins & Tray and Gordon Macdonald, for appellee.

HEAD J.

Hubbard Price & Co., the defendants to this bill and appellants here are cotton brokers in New York City, engaged in buying and selling, for commissions, cotton, in the New York Exchange for customers, for future delivery, and on the spot. Calvin Sayre, the husband of appellee, in 1887 resided in Montgomery, Ala. John S. Ernest was the southern agent and representative of Hubbard, Price & Co. In 1887, Ernest entered into arrangements with Sayre for the carrying on by his principals, in New York, of cotton speculations for Sayre, consisting of buying and selling cotton futures. The operations began, and during that year (1887) some 15,000, or 20,000 bales were bought and sold, the transactions resulting, variously, in profits and losses. Hubbard, Price & Co. made advances for Sayre, when necessary, to keep up his contracts or cover his losses. They had no interest in the dealings, except their stipulated commissions, and interest on their advances. When the operations closed, in the latter part of the year, it was found Sayre was indebted to Hubbard, Price & Co., for commissions and advances, in some $8,000 or $10,000. Ernest went to Montgomery on the 26th day of October, 1887, and had a settlement with Sayre, and received from him, in full payment and acquittance of the debt, $3,000 in money, and a conveyance, executed by him and his wife, the appellee, to Hubbard, Price & Co., conveying the lots of land described in the bill, situated in Montgomery. This land had belonged to Calvin Sayre, but on the 8th day of June, 1887, before any losses had occurred to him in the cotton speculations, he made a voluntary conveyance of it to his wife, the appellee. It is insisted by appellants' counsel that there is no legal evidence of this conveyance. The bill sets out, as an exhibit, what is alleged to be a copy of the deed, but the exhibit is not formally proved, nor is the deed introduced in evidence. The appellants, however, suffered Sayre to testify, without objection, that he had made a deed of the lot to his wife about that time. It must therefore be regarded as proved. We think the evidence sufficiently shows that Ernest knew the lot belonged to Mrs. Sayre when he took the deed from her and her husband. This bill is filed by Mrs. Sayre to vacate the conveyance to Hubbard, Price & Co., alleging that the indebtedness to pay which it was executed grew out of purely gambling transactions between them and her husband, by reason of the fact that the cotton speculations were carried on with the understanding and intent, on the part of both parties, that Sayre should neither actually deliver nor receive any cotton sold or bought, but that profits and losses should be settled by payment of differences between contract and market prices at the times fictitiously stipulated for delivery. There is issue between the parties upon these allegations, as to the character of the transactions, and evidence introduced by both to maintain it upon their respective parts; but, as the case is presented to us, we deem it unnecessary to decide it. We have seen that Hubbard, Price & Co. were brokers merely in the transactions, and had no interest in the contracts they made with others, for Sayre, except to realize their commissions, and be reimbursed their advances. In the absence of a statute of New York declaring the transactions (if they were such as the bill alleges) void, by the principles of the common law, which we presume prevails in New York, the broker is entitled to recover his commissions and advances, although, by the common law, such transactions are void as against public policy, if the principal subsequently promises to pay them, or with full knowledge of the facts, without objection, her permits the transaction to proceed. This was decided in Hawley v. Bibb, ...