Williams v. Carr
| Decision Date | 31 January 1879 |
| Citation | 80 N.C. 294 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | WILLIAMS, BLACK & CO. v. ELIAS CARR, Adm'r R. S. Williams. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
CONTROVERSY submitted without action under the Code § 315, at Fall Term, 1878, of EDGECOMBE Superior Court, to Seymour, J.
The case is sufficiently stated by THE CHIEF JUSTICE. His Honor gave judgment for plaintiffs and the defendant appealed.
Messrs. Geo. Howard & J. L. Bridgers for plaintiffs .
Messrs. Fred. Phillips and Gilliam & Gatling, for defendant .
This is a controversy submitted without action under C. C. P. § 315 on a case agreed, the substantial facts of which are these:
The action is to recover the value of a promissory note given by the defendant's intestate and moneys paid by the plaintiffs to the use of the intestate, the aggregate amount of which, due February 24th, 1878, is $8,419.38. The consideration of the indebtedness was successive losses sustained on time contracts for the purchase of cotton, made on his behalf by the plaintiffs and paid by them at his request, and for charges and expenses incurred in the premises. The defence set up is that the contracts were in the nature of wagers or bets on the price of cotton at a given time and are illegal and void. The contracts were numerous, extending over a considerable space of time, and were similar to the one set out in the case which is as follows:
OFFICE OF JOHN T. BLACK, COTTON BROKER, WILLIAM ST.,
New York, June 6, 1877.
Sold for Messrs. Macaulay & Co.
To Messrs. Williams, Black & Co.
45,000 lbs. in about one hundred square bales cotton, growth of the United States, deliverable from dock or store in said city between the first and last day of December next inclusive. The delivery within such time to be at the seller's option, in lots of not less than fifty bales upon five days' notice to the buyer, the cotton to be of any grade from strict ordinary to fair, inclusive, at the price of 11?? cents per pound for middling, with additions or deductions for other grades, according to the rate of the cotton exchange at the time of delivery. Either party to have the right to call for a margin as the variations of the market for like deliveries may warrant, and which margin shall be kept good. This contract is made in view of and in all respects subject to the rules and conditions established by the New York cotton exchange and in full accordance with Art. XVII of the by-laws.
+-----------------------------------------+
¦(Signed)¦JOHN T. BLACK, Cotton Broker. ”¦
+-----------------------------------------+
Across the face of the paper are written these words:
This contract was entered into on the cotton exchange in New York, in the regular and ordinary course of business, and in conformity to its rules and regulations, Macaulay & Co., doing business therein. The cotton exchange is an incorporated institution with authority to make rules and regulations for the government of the cotton trade in the city not inconsistent with the laws of the state and of the United States. In November, 1877, cotton having declined, the intestate directed the plaintiffs to close out the contract, which was done by the plaintiffs executing another contract, reversing their relations and undertaking to sell and deliver cotton on the same terms to other purchasers, and assigning the first contract to them at a loss of about $150 to the intestate in making the substitution.
The intestate's interest in these transactions was known to the plaintiffs to be speculative merely, and his purchases were made in the expectation of profit from an advance in the market value of the article.
The agreement upon its face is fair and reasonable and free from any imputation or taint of illegality. It purports to contain the terms of sale by Macaulay & Co. of a specified quantity of cotton deliverable at their option during the month of December on proper notice. It contains no intimation that it can be satisfied otherwise than by a delivery at the time appointed. Looking into the pamphlet which accompanies the case and contains the charter and regulations of the cotton exchange, by which, in the absence of express provisions the contract is to be interpreted and executed, we find nothing inconsistent with entire good faith or casting suspicion upon the integrity of the transaction. Rule 8 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodgers, McCabe & Co. v. Bell
...or altered by the secret and undisclosed intent of one of the parties to the contrary. This is true on general principles. Williams v. Carr, 80 N.C. 294; Anson on pp. 2, 3, 4; Clark on Contracts, pp. 2, 3. And on the facts of this case both the statute in question and authoritative interpre......
-
Cannaday v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...here." The principle has been recognized and enforced by this court in Watson v. Orr, 14 N.C. 661, Anderson v. Doak, 32 N.C. 295, Williams v. Carr, 80 N.C. 294, Hancock Telegraph Co., 137 N.C. 497, 49 S.E. 952, and Hall v. Telegraph Co., 139 N.C. 369, 52 S.E. 50. The exceptions to the gener......
-
Whitesides v. Hunt
... ... Benedict, 70 N.Y. 202 (26 ... Am. R. 573); Maxton v. Gheen, 75 Pa. 166; ... Peabody v. Speyers, 56 N.Y. 230; ... Williams v. Tiedemann, 6 Mo.App. 269; ... Sampson v. Shaw, 101 Mass. 145 (3 Am. R ... 327); Kirkpatrick v. Bonsall, 72 Pa. 155; ... Clarke v ... secret purpose or intention of the other. Rumsey v ... Berry, 65 Me. 570; Williams v ... Carr, 80 N.C. 294; Gregory v ... Wendell, 39 Mich. 337 ... The ... burden of the defence rests upon the defendant ... ...
-
Cannaday v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co
...The principle has been recognized and enforced by this court in Watson v. Orr, 14 N. C. 661, Anderson v. Doak, 32 N. C. 295, Williams v. Carr, 80 N. C. 294, Hancock v. Telegraph Co., 137 N. C. 497, 49 S. E. 952, and Hall v. Telegraph Co., 139 N. C. 369, 52 S. E. 50. The exceptions to the ge......