The Law of the Land. have been demanded when the time of deliv ery arrived, that he made daily settlements for his purchases and sales in accordance with the rules, that the fact of non-delivery resulted by reason of the client ordering the sale before the time of delivery came around, it was held not to be a wagering contract and a note given in the deal was good. Where a broker bought stock on an order, paid for it and took the delivery of it and asked purchaser to take the stock, although there might have been times when the stock was not in his name, yet was in possession of the broker at the time he requested pur chaser to take it, it does not lie in the mouth of the principal to say agent could not de liver when he never offered payment or de manded delivery, hence the broker could recover the money advanced in the pur chases. When stocks are bought and sold, although upon speculation, if they are to be delivered it is not a gambling transaction. One not owning stock employed a broker to sell stock for him at a named price, to be delivered upon a particular day. The stock was sold and at the time of delivery, prices having risen, the broker borrowed stocks to meet the engagement. He afterwards, under in structions, bought at a higher rate to replace the stock borrowed and the transaction was held to be a legitimate one and that the customer was liable to the broker for the difference. In another case where the circum stances were identical, but no delivery was pro vided or intended and the settlement was to be upon the rise or fall of the market, it was held to be a gambling contract and void. In a deal where stocks were in every in stance actually sold and delivered and the broker was not aware that his customer was selling short until the time of credit was ex piring and he bought to fill his sales, the Court ruled it will not do to say because there is so much gambling in stocks that every sale short is ipso facto a wager, and compelled
575
the short customer to stand good to the transaction. Where the broker with client's money bought shares of stock and received and re tained the certificate thereof until at the request of client they were sold and the pro ceeds of the sale were retained and used in part payment of other stock purchased in same way at client's request, and these pur chases and sales of stock continued until the client was in broker's debt, for which debt a judgment note was given, the note was held not to be a debt of honor, but a good legal debt collectible by process of law. Loans and advances by brokers cannot always be collected, for the chances are the courts will look upon the broker as a middle man and hold that one who knowingly and with the purpose of furthering a gambling transaction in purchasing commodities, stock, grain or oil on margin, lends money to an other, cannot recover it. It being unlawful for one man to pay, it cannot be lawful for another to furnish him the means of paying. The creditor, however, must have known that the borrower was purposing such use of the loan and must have been complicated as a confederate in the transaction, though such confederacy does not necessarily contemplate sharing the gains and losses. A word about corners. An agreement to make a corner in stock by buying it up so as to control the market and then purchase for future delivery and compel all the sellers to buy of them to make good their sales has been judicially determined to be a void con tract. A case of much interest was that where it appeared the client deposited a sum of money with broker to be devoted at broker's discretion to speculation in stock for the ben efit and at the risk of the owner, and the money was applied in the way intended in the utmost good faith, but the speculations were unsuccessful and the money was lost. The broker, however, did not communicate to his principal the facts of the loss, but sought to
