Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Deposit Guaranty Bank

• Decision Date: 20 April 1931
• Docket Number: 29384
• Citation: 160 Miss. 815,133 So. 660
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: SKINNER MFG. CO. v. DEPOSIT GUARANTY BANK

133 So. 660

160 Miss. 815

SKINNER MFG. CO. v. DEPOSIT GUARANTY BANK

No. 29384

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 20, 1931

Division B

Suggestion Of Error Overruled May 25, 1931.

APPEAL from chancery court of Hinds county, First district, HON. V J. STRICKER, Chancellor.

Suit by the Deposit Guaranty Bank against the Skinner Manufacturing Company. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. Reversed, and the bill dismissed.

Reversed and bill dismissed.

Lemuel H. Doty, of Jackson, for appellant.

The defense interposed originally and followed up was that the check was delivered to one of the parties gambling with Pirtle and that no consideration passed; that it being a gambling debt, the alleged consideration was utterly void.

Chapter 32, section 1824 of the Annotated Code of Mississippi, 1930.

The contention of the appellant, defendant below, in the court below, was that chapter 32 not having been expressly repealed, could not be repealed by implication where it is carried forward from the Code of 1906 to the present Code and the authorities cited seem to hold that no gambling or future contract can be collected but are absolutely void.

Campbell v. N. O. Nat'l Bank, 74 Miss. 526, 21 So. 400.

M. A Pilgrim, of Jackson. for appellee.

The instrument in the case at bar having been executed for a good and valuable consideration, not tainted in any manner with any gambling debt or other thing contrary to law, was a good and valid instrument and contract in the beginning and therefore not affected in any manner whatsoever by section 1824, Code of 1930.

The appellee is the holder in due course of the instrument in question, the instrument having been executed in the beginning for a lawful consideration is a valid and binding obligation. The appellee being a holder in due course is protected by the law against defects in title of prior parties. This being true the question of the check having been negotiated in a poker game does not affect the right of the appellee to recover against the drawer.

Counsel refers to the case of Campbell v. New Orleans National Bank which is a Mississippi case, reported in 21 So., page 400. We do not see where this case is applicable. The contract in question was a cotton futures contract, executed for a void consideration in the beginning and is therefore different from the check in this case. The check in this case having been executed in the beginning for a good and valid consideration. In case the court should decide there is conflict between the gambling statute and the negotiable instruments law, we wish to call attention to the fact that the above...