Snoddy v. Bank
Tennessee Supreme Court
FROM DEKALB. Appeal in error from the Circuit Court of De-Kalb County. M. D. Smallman, J. Action by the American National Bank to re- . cover of J. Ii. Snoddy upon a note given by him to Williams & Co., and indorsed by them to the bank for value, before due, and in due course of trade.
Read the full summary
FROM DEKALB. Appeal in error from the Circuit Court of De-Kalb County. M. D. Smallman, J. Action by the American National Bank to re- . cover of J. Ii. Snoddy upon a note given by him to Williams & Co., and indorsed by them to the bank for value, before due, and in due course of trade. The defense interposed was that the note was given for losses incurred and paid by Williams & Co. in conducting for Snoddy certain gaming transactions known as dealing in futures; and that, therefore, the note is void even in the hands of an innocent holder. The bank recovered judgment below. Snoddy appealed…
1Opinion of the CourtSnodgRASS, J.
The only question in this case is whether an innocent holder of a note founded on a gaming consideration can recover of the maker.
The note sued on was void in the hands of the payee. It was given in settlement of loss sustained by plaintiff in error while dealing in futures with Williams & Co. There was no intent to take or deliver grain pretended to be purchased on the one- hand or sold on the other. The contract to do so was therefore gaming and void by express statute. Act 1883, p. 331; McGrew v. City Produce Exchange, 1 Pickle, 572.
Nor does it matter that Williams & Co. pretended to be or…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Washer v. SmyerTexas Supreme Court · 1919
- Sabine v. . PaineNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Citizens Nat. Bank v. BuckheitAlabama Court of Appeals · 1916
- Union Trust Co. v. Preston National BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
- Bohon's Assignee v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1897
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.