Legal Opinion

Sawyer, Wallace & Co. v. Taggart

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided May 1, 1879PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Case 48 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. If the purchases and sales made by Sawyer, Wallace & Co. were “wagering” contracts, this fact constitutes no defense to appellants’ claim, for the contracts were made and were to be performed in New York, and are therefore governed by the law of that state.

Read the full summary

Case 48 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. If the purchases and sales made by Sawyer, Wallace & Co. were “wagering” contracts, this fact constitutes no defense to appellants’ claim, for the contracts were made and were to be performed in New York, and are therefore governed by the law of that state. In the absence of any New York statute (none having been produced on the trial, or made part of the record), the case is left to the operation of the common law. The statutes of other states are facts to be established by evidence as other facts, and, in the absence of…

1Opinion of the Court

JUDGE GOFER

delivered the opinion ok the court.

Hamilton & Brothers & Co. were pork-packers and commission merchants doing business in the city of Louisville, and the appellants, Sawyer, Wallace & Co., were commission merchants doing business in the city of New York, and members of the New York Cotton Exchange and of the New York Produce Exchange.

Commencing in December, 1875, Hamiltons, from time to time, directed Sawyer, Wallace & Co. to buy for their, account, for future delivery, certain specified quantities of cotton, pork, and lard.

Hamiltons knew that Sawyer, Wallace & Co. were members of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sampson v. ShawMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
  2. Whitehead v. RootCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. McDearmott v. SedgwickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
  2. Whitesides v. HuntIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Kent v. MiltenbergerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883
  4. Wall v. SchneiderWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
  5. Cockrell v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API