R.E. Pratt & Co. v. Ashmore
Decision Date | 07 February 1907 |
Citation | 224 Ill. 587,79 N.E. 952 |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Parties | R. E. PRATT & CO. et al. v. ASHMORE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Macon County; Solon Philbrick, Judge.
Action by George M. Ashmore against R. E. Pratt & Co. and others. From a decree in favor of complainant, defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Hugh Crea and Hugh W. Housam, for plaintiffs in error.
Mills Bros. and Le Forgee & Vail, for defendant in error.
On December 20, 1903, the defendant in error, George M. Ashmore, filed his bill in the circuit court of Macon county, which was afterwards amended, against plaintiffs in error, alleging that he was the owner in fee of certain real estate situated in the city of Decatur; that the defendant Frank M. Pratt resided in said city and the defendant Ralph E. Pratt resided in the city of Chicago; that, during the period of the transactions in the bill set forth, said parties, Frank M. and Ralph E. Pratt, were partners, doing a commission business on the board of trade in Chicago under the corporate name of R. E. Pratt & Co.; that Frank M. Pratt looked after the interests of said corporation in the city of Decatur and adjoining localities; that Ralph E. Pratt was the business manager of said corporation in Chicago on the board of trade; that the corporation of R. E. Pratt & Co. was succeeded in the spring of 1902 by the firm of Pratt & Buckley, composed of R. E. Pratt and C. W. Buckley, and the firm of Pratt & Buckley was, on November 16, 1904, succeeded by the firm of Buckley & Co., consisting of R. E. Pratt and C. W. Buckley; that, during several months prior to December, 1901, the complainant had many dealings on the board of trade in Chicago in options through the agency of Pratt & Co. of Decatur and R. E. Pratt & Co., a corporation, and in the month of December, 1901, he began to speculate in rye, and continued such speculations until on or about April 21, 1902, which speculations were carried on through the agency of R. E. Pratt & Co., a corporation; that it was mutually understood between the complainant and the defendants, at the time said transactions or speculations were had and entered into, that no rye was to be actually received or delivered on said transactions, but that the same were made, and in fact were settled, upon differences between the market prices at which the rye was bought and sold, and with such understanding the complainant on certain dates bought certain amounts of rye which were closed out or sold on certain other days; that through the transactions conducted by Pratt & Co. of Decatur and R. E. Pratt & Co., a corporation, complainant lost $16,000, and afterwards, on April 21, 1902, the defendants, claiming to have advanced for complainant, on account of said deals and speculations, the sum of $10,000, demanded that a note secured by real estate deed be executed for the same; that complainant executed a note for $10,000, payable to Frank M. Pratt, and made a deed to him for the real estate described in the bill; that the only consideration for the execution and delivery of the note and deed was to secure the $10,000 claimed to have been advanced by defendants to cover losses sustained in the purchase and sale of said rye, and that the note and deed are void under the statutes of this state; that on September 1, 1902, complainant having made payments on said note, it was claimed by the defendants that there was still due on the same the sum of $7,728.62, and that, upon request or demand, complainant delivered to Frank M. Pratt, for the use and benefit of R. E. Pratt & Co. and its successors, a promissory note for said amount, the full consideration for which was the losses above stated; that this note was subsequently delivered to Ralph E. Pratt, and the said Frank M. Pratt afterwards conveyed the real estate to the former; that the said deeds are clouds upon the title of said complainant; and the prayer was that they should be removed and the notes surrendered and canceled. A joint and several answer was filed to the bill as amended, by all of the defendants, denying its allegations. The cause was referred to a master to take the evidence and report the same, together with his conclusions of law and fact. He reported in favor of the complainant, finding that the equities were with him, and that he was entitled to the relief prayed in the amended bill. Exceptions to his report were overruled, and a decree entered by the chancellor in accordance with his finding. A writ of error has been prosecuted by R. E. Pratt & Co., a corporation, Pratt & Co., Ralph E. Pratt, and Frank M. Pratt.WILKIN, J. (after stating the facts).
Counsel for plaintiffs in error do not seek to have the decree of the court below reversed for errors of law, but admit that the case is one of fact. The question for our determination is whether the transaction between the parties, as set up in the bill were gambling transactions within the meaning of section 130 of chapter 38 of our statutes (Hurd's Rev. St. 1905, pp. 698, 699), and whether, if void, the complainant was entitled to the relief prayed under sections 131 and 132 of the same chapter. Section 130 provides that whoever contracts to have or give to himself or another the option to sell or buy at a future time any grain or other commodity, etc., shall be fined, etc., and that all contracts made in violation of the section shall be considered gambling contracts and shall be null and void. Section 131 provides that all promissory notes, mortgages, or other securities or conveyances made, etc., by any person whatsoever, where the whole or any part of the consideration thereof shall be for money, property or other valuable thing won by any gaming, etc., shall be void, and of no effect. Section 132 authorizes a recovery in an action at law or in chancery for any money or other valuable thing lost in gambling.
These several sections of the statute have been before us for construction on many occasions, and we have held that all transactions in grain or other commodities are gambling transactions, within the meaning of section 130, and are void if it was the understanding between the parties that no deliveries were to be actually made, but the purchase or sale was to be adjusted on the mere settlement of differences. Where a contract for the delivery and sale of stocks or other property in the future is not made with the intention that such stocks or property shall be received or delivered,but with the understanding, either expressed or implied, that the transactions shall be settled by the payment of the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time fixed or at some future time, such a contract is a mere gambling contract, and is void. Schneider v. Turner, 130 Ill. 28, 22 N. E. 497,6 L. R. A. 164;Pope v. Hanke, 155 Ill. 617, 40 N. E. 839,28 L. R. A. 568. Contracts made between parties who have no intention of receiving and delivering the property, but intend merely to settle accounts by the payment of the differences are void, and will not be enforced. 8 Am. & Eng. Ency....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ascher v. Edward Moyse & Co.
... ... 233; Waite v. Frank, 14 S.D. 634; Edwards v ... Hoeffinghoff, 38 F. 639; Pratt & Company v ... Ashmore, 224 Ill. 587; Ware Commission Co. v. The ... People, 209 Ill. 528; ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank of El Paso v. Miller
...parties in such cases may be determined from the nature of the transactions and the method of carrying on the business. Pratt & Co. v. Ashmore, 224 Ill. 587, 79 N. E. 952;Pope v. Hanke, 155 Ill. 617, 40 N. E. 839,28 L. R. A. 568;Jamieson v. Wallace, 167 Ill. 388, 47 N. E. 762,59 Am. St. Rep......
-
Riordon v. McCabe
...the meaning of section 130 of the Criminal Code and are void. White v. Turner-Hudnut Co., 322 Ill. 133, 152 N. E. 572;Pratt & Co. v. Ashmore, 224 Ill. 587, 79 N. E. 952;Weare Commission Co. v. People, 209 Ill. 528, 70 N. E. 1076;Pope v. Hanke, 155 Ill. 617, 40 N. E. 839,28 L. R. A. 568;Schn......
-
Benson-Stabeck Co. v. Reservation Farmers' Grain Co.
...indispensable that declarations or statements of the parties showing such intention or understanding should be proven. Pratt v. Ashmore, 224 Ill. 587, 79 N.E. 952, 953. Such statements may be overborne from facts circumstances. Carson et al. v. Milwaukee Produce Co., 133 Wis. 85, 113 N.W. 3......