Higgins v. McCrea
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF .THE UNITED STATES FOB THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. The plaintiffs in error were the plaintiffs in the Circuit Court. They brought this action to recover $31,644.31, and interest, for 'moneys paid by them, as they alleged, in executing the orders of the defendant for the purchase, in May, 1883, of certain lots of pork and lard in the Exchange of the Chicago Board of Trade, to be delivered in the following August.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF .THE UNITED STATES FOB THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. The plaintiffs in error were the plaintiffs in the Circuit Court. They brought this action to recover $31,644.31, and interest, for 'moneys paid by them, as they alleged, in executing the orders of the defendant for the purchase, in May, 1883, of certain lots of pork and lard in the Exchange of the Chicago Board of Trade, to be delivered in the following August. The petition averred that the plaintiffs were commission merchants and members of said Board of Trade, that the transactions out of which the suit…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Woods
After stating the facts as above reported, he continued:
It is not disputed that if the transactions out of which this suit arose were of the character described in the counter-claim and testimony of the defendant, they fell under the ban of section 130 of chapter 38 of the Revised Statutes of Illinois of 1885, page 405, which was in force when the transactions took place. That section, so far as applicable to this case, was as follows: “ "Whoever contracts to, have or give to himself or another the option to sell or buy at a future time any grain Or other commodity, . . . shall be fined not…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Ogden v. SaundersSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Randall v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Pleasants v. FantSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Ford v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
- Hanauer v. DoaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by71 opinions
- Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. BernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Sturm v. BokerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- American International Group, Inc. v. GreenbergCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2009
- Houston North Shore Railway Co. v. TyrrellTexas Supreme Court · 1936
- Adams v. DickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.