Eure v. Sabiston

Citations

• 195 F. 721
• 115 C.C.A. 511
• 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1424

Syllabus

<p>1, Gaming (§ 49*)—Action by Buyer foe Breach of Contract—Defense of Illegality—North Carolina Statute.</p> <p>Revisal N. 0. 1905, § 1689, makes gaming contracts for future delivery of stock or commodities void, but also contains a provision that “this section shall not he construed so as to apply to any person, firm, corporation or his w their agent, engaged in the business of manufacturing or wholesale merchandising in the purchase or sale of the necessary commodities required in the ordinary course of their business.” As the statute is construed l)y the Supreme Court of the state, such provision properly belongs in and applies only to seel ion 1691, which places the burden of proof on the plaintiff in an action where the statute is pleaded as a defense and is intended to exempt manufacturers and bona fide dealers, suing on contracts which are fair and valid on their face from such burden. Held that, in such an action on a contract for future delivery of cotton, plaintiffs were entitled to have the question whether they were wholesale dealers in cotton as a commodity and required such cotton in the ordinary course of their business submitted to the jury with proper instructions as to the effect of an affirmative finding thereon.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Gaming, Cent. Dig. §§ 100-102; Dee. Dig. § 49.*]</p> <p>2. Sales (§ 4.18*)—Breach of Contract of Sale—Measure of Damages.</p> <p>In an action for breach of a contract by which defendant agreed to deliver to plaintiffs “fifty bales of cotton, * * * which said party is</p> <p>now growing in Onslow county,” plaintiffs are limited to the recovery of such damages as they may have sustained by reason of defendant’s failure to deliver such cotton as he was growing in Onslow county at the time the contract, was made.</p> <p>]Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig, §§ 1174-1201; Dec. Dig. § 418.*]</p>