Peto v. Howell

LINDLEY, District Judge.

Upon a former appeal, Peto v. Howell, 7 Cir., 101 F.2d 353, 362, we reversed a judgment of the District Court wherein the latter had directed a verdict for defendant for the reason, among others, that plaintiff, in his prayer for damages, was relying upon illegal gambling contracts. We there said: “Under Section 328, Chapter 38 of the Illinois Revised Statutes, a contract for future delivery of commodities is denominated a gambling contract and void, if both parties intend at the time of making it that it shall be settled not by the delivery of the property involved…