Kassuba Comm'n Co. v. Blodgett
| Decision Date | 18 November 1913 |
| Citation | 143 N.W. 1060,155 Wis. 529 |
| Parties | KASSUBA COMMISSION CO. v. BLODGETT. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; John C. Ludwig, Judge.
Action by the Kassuba Commission Company against Horace Blodgett. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.William E. Burke, of Milwaukee, for appellant.
Carroll & Carroll, of Milwaukee, for respondent.
The question presented in this case is whether upon the following facts found a broker may recover in a suit against his principal for advances:
The defendant through the plaintiff broker bought grain on the Milwaukee board of trade upon margins, for future delivery, and, before the day for delivery arrived, sold like quantities of grain for like delivery and offset the trades, leaving defendant with a credit of $253.25 in the hands of the plaintiff. Thereafter defendant through this broker made several sales of grain for May, July, and September, 1912, delivery, which the broker on April 27, 1912, closed out by purchasing a like amount of like grain for the like delivery, and offset these purchases against the sales. This resulted in a loss of $718.75, which was paid by the broker and for which, together with his commission and less the said balance of $253.25, this suit is brought.
It was found that the plaintiff when entering into said transactions and making said contracts intended in good faith to perform the same; also that it was the intention of the defendant in his transactions through the plaintiff thereby to gamble upon the market price of grain; that he did not intend to make any actual sale or delivery of the grain, but merely intended such transactions as a wager on the future market price of said commodity; “that although defendant did not inform plaintiff that he intended to gamble, plaintiff, from the facts and circumstances must have had actual knowledge that the defendant, by and in such transactions with it as aforesaid, intended to so in fact gamble; that the defendant did not intend to receive or deliver the grain, but intended to merely settle for the difference between the contract and the market price of the grain contracted for.” We consider this is a sufficient finding that defendant intended a series of gambling contracts, and that the broker knew such intention when it acted as the agent of defendant in carrying out the contracts and making the advances or payments on the same. This is not an action between the parties to the contract for the future purchase, sale, transfer, or delivery of personal property as described in section 2319a, Wis. Stats. No doubt in a suit by a broker to recover commissions and advances, if the contract was void under section 2319a as a gambling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. Jacobs
...of the party seeking to recover thereon, based upon such a tainted transaction, there can be no recovery. Kassuba Com. Co. v. Blodgett, 155 Wis. 529, 531, 143 N. W. 1060, 145 N. W. 177;Carson v. Milwaukee Produce Co., 133 Wis. 87, 91, 93, 113 N. W. 393;Olson v. Sawyer-Goodman Co., 110 Wis. ......
-
Allen v. Denman
...valid. 3 Williston on Contracts, §§ 1671, 1672; Carson v. Milwaukee Produce Co., 133 Wis. 85, 113 N. W. 393; Kassuba Commission Co. v. Blodgett, 155 Wis. 529, 143 N. W. 1060, 145 N. W. 177. If Denman made contracts with Hyman which Allen had not authorized him to make, then he cannot recove......
- Schacht v. Oriental Storage & Transfer Co.
-
Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Madson
...the findings of fact. Ellis v. Frawley, 165 Wis. 381, 161 N. W. 364;Hoff v. Hackett, 148 Wis. 32, 134 N. W. 132;Kassuba Commission Co. v. Blodgett, 155 Wis. 529, 143 N. W. 1060, 145 N. W. 177. We cannot state the facts necessary to a consideration of the questions raised any more briefly th......