Layton v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, J.
The first headnote does not require elaboration.
One ground of the motion for new trial was based upon the refusal of the court to instruct the jury, as duly requested, viz.: “Dealings in all kinds of contracts for the future delivery of commodities are not forbidden by the act under which the defendant *276is indicted in the first count of the indictment. The only kinds of contracts which are forbidden by the act are contracts or agreements whereby some person or corporation agrees to bny or sell and deliver or sell with an agreement to deliver on margin wheat, cotton, or other commodity, stocks,…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Fenner v. BoykinSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Forsyth Manufacturing Co. v. CastlenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Arthur v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1917
- Peters v. GrimSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Anderson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Southern Railway Co. v. Overnite Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1967
- Taunton v. Allenberg Cotton Company, Inc.District Court, M.D. Georgia · 1973
- R. N. Kelly Cotton Merchant, Inc. v. YorkDistrict Court, M.D. Georgia · 1973
- Hutchinson v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
- MITCHELL-HUNTLEY COTTON COMPANY, INC. v. LawsonDistrict Court, M.D. Georgia · 1973
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.