Hatch v. Douglas
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit to recover a balance claimed to be due upon certain stock transactions; brought to the Superior Court in Middlesex County.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit to recover a balance claimed to be due upon certain stock transactions; brought to the Superior Court in Middlesex County. The following facts were found by a committee:— On the 2Sd day of June, 1873, the defendant requested the plaintiffs, who were brokers doing business in the city of New York, to purchase certain stocks for his account on a margin of certain securities offered, which request was made in the following letter:— “Middletown, Conn., June 23,1873, “ Messes. Hatch & Eoote. G-entlemen—I want to buy say 100 shares Union Pacific stock on margin. "Will you take $1,000…
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
The authorities are clear that a contract relating to stocks or other commodities, to be performed at a future day, by which the parties contemplate only the payment of the difference in the market value by one or the other as the case may be, is a mere gaming contract and void. So if parties in form contract to sell goods to be delivered in the future, the seller in fact having no goods, and the parties not intending an actual delivery, but contemplating merely a payment of the difference between the market value on that day and the agreed price, it is a gaming contract and cannot…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Skiff v. StoddardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
- Wiggin v. Federal Stock & Grain Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1905
- First National Bank v. WaddellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Goodale v. WallaceSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1905
- Wall v. SchneiderWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.