Fortenbury v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
ERROR to Pulaski Circuit Court. Hon. F. T. Vaughan, Circuit Judge. The indictment is presumed to be founded upon the act of March 30, 1883, which declares: “That the buying or selling, or otherwise dealing in what is known as futures, either in cotton, grain or anything whatsoever, with a view to profit, is hereby declared to be gambling.” If this statute is to be construed to mean what it says, our position is, that it is in restraint of trade.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Pulaski Circuit Court. Hon. F. T. Vaughan, Circuit Judge. The indictment is presumed to be founded upon the act of March 30, 1883, which declares: “That the buying or selling, or otherwise dealing in what is known as futures, either in cotton, grain or anything whatsoever, with a view to profit, is hereby declared to be gambling.” If this statute is to be construed to mean what it says, our position is, that it is in restraint of trade. If it is aimed at those contracts where both the buyer and seller agree,' or understand,, that no delivery is to take place, but only to pay the…
1Opinion of the Court
Smith, T.
1. dealing in. Fu-tuses : stat-me construed.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of- gambling & • c , _ _, in gram futures and was fined $250. Motions m arrest of judgment and for a new trial were denied. ' '•
The indictment charges the offense in the language of the statute, which is as follows:
“Section 1. That the buying or otherwise dealing in what is known as futures, either in cotton, grain or anything whatsoever, with a view to profit, is hereby declared to be gambling.”
The second section makes such dealing a misdemeanor, punishable by fine, and. for the second- offense by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Irwin v. WilliarSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Gregory v. WendellMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Whitesides v. HuntIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Thompson Bros. v. Cummings & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1881
3Cited by18 opinions
- JL McEntire & Sons, Inc. v. Hart Cotton Company, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1974
- Hoyt v. WickhamCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1928
- Mullinix v. HubbardCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925
- Arkansas Cotton Growers' Co-Operative Ass'n v. BrownSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Huff v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.