Parker v. Moore
Citations
- 115 F. 799
- 53 C.C.A. 369
- 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4253
Syllabus
<p>1. Contracts — Action for Breach — What Daw Governs.</p> <p>A contract, although recognized as valid by the laws of the state where made, will in general not be enforced by the courts of another state, where it is contrary to morals or to the public policy or statutes of such state.</p> <p>2. Federal Courts — Following State Decisions.</p> <p>A court of the United States will follow the rule laid down by the highest court of the state in determining whether a contract is governed by the láws of the place where it was made and to be performed or by the law of the forum, and also upon the question whether a contract is contrary to the public policy or statutes of the state.</p> <p>8. Trial — Direction of Nonsuit — Questions for Jury.</p> <p>In an action to recover margins advanced by plaintiffs as brokers for defendant on purchases of cotton for future delivery made on defendant’s, order on the New York Cotton Exchange, where plaintiffs introduced evidence showing that in each case they advised defendant that the purchase was made with the distinct understanding that actual delivery was contemplated, to which he expressed no dissent, it was error to direct a nonsuit, suo motu, based upon the statute of South Carolina, declaring such contracts void unless it was the bona fide intention of both parties at the time the contract was made that the cotton should be actually delivered and received in kind, merely on the self-serving testimony of defendant that it was not his intention to receive the cotton; the question of defendant’s actual intention at the time, under such state of evidence, being one for the jury.</p> <p>4 Contracts — Gambling Transactions — Right of Broker to Recover Advances.</p> <p>The statute of South Carolina (Rev. St. § 1859 et seq.), which declares void contracts for the sale and purchase of certain articles, including cotton, for future delivery, unless it is the bona fide intention of both parties at the time that the article shall actually be
Judges: Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Lakos v. SaliarisFourth Circuit· 1940-12-31· cited 37×
- Citizens Nat. Bank of Orange, Va. v. WaughFourth Circuit· 1935-06-03· cited 27×
- Chesapeake Supply & Equipment Co. v. J.I. Case Co.E.D. Virginia· 1988-11-23· cited 20×
- Transbel Inv. Co. v. RothS.D. New York· 1940-12-31· cited 11×
- Resorts International Hotel, Inc. v. AgrestaE.D. Virginia· 1983-08-05· cited 10×
- Wertheimer v. Travelers' Protective Ass'n of AmericaTenth Circuit· 1933-03-28· cited 10×
- Seaboard Surety Co. v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co.Eighth Circuit· 1941-06-12· cited 9×
- Lamson Bros. & Co. v. TurnerEighth Circuit· 1921-12-27· cited 8×
- Hudson v. SheafeSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1919-03-24· cited 7×
- Springs v. CarpenterFourth Circuit· 1907-05-31· cited 7×
- Moore v. MitchellS.D. New York· 1928-06-13· cited 6×
- Breslin v. National Surety Co.Third Circuit· 1930-09-15· cited 6×
- Lawton v. CarpenterFourth Circuit· 1912-02-15· cited 3×
- Dougherty v. GutensteinS.D. New York· 1935-03-04· cited 1×
- Moore v. W. R. Grace & Co.Fourth Circuit· 1923-02-06· cited 1×
- McLure v. WilsonFourth Circuit· 1923-07-03· cited 1×
- In re Ætna Cotton MillsD. South Carolina· 1909-07-16
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Leffingwell v. WarrenSupreme Court· 1862-12-15· cited 168×
- McCluny v. SillimanSupreme Court· 1830-02-12· cited 114×
- Shelby v. GuySupreme Court· 1826-03-18· cited 108×
- Higgins v. McCreaSupreme Court· 1886-03-01· cited 71×
- Sondheim v. GilbertIndiana Supreme Court· 1888-11-27· cited 50×
- Mumford v. CantyIllinois Supreme Court· 1869-01-15· cited 27×
- North Pacific Lumber Co. v. LangOregon Supreme Court· 1895-12-09· cited 20×
- Gist v. Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1895-10-11· cited 16×
- Sheldon v. BlauveltSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1888-10-23· cited 10×
- Harvey & Co. v. DotySupreme Court of South Carolina· 1899-03-15· cited 6×
- Midland Co. v. BroatSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1892-07-22· cited 6×
- Riordan & Co. v. DotySupreme Court of South Carolina· 1897-09-30· cited 5×
- Knowlton v. DohertySupreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1895-05-07· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.