552
THE GREEN BAG
to be performed by the grantee. Though the husband had a perfect right during his life to give the property to the wife for any considera tion or without any consideration; nevertheless, it is argued, that as he did not deliver the deed but simply agreed to deliver it, this agreement was not enforceable tinless based on a considera tion. No consideration, it is pointed out, exists in this case, the wife not agreeing to do anything, but merely receiving the benefit if the husband got drunk. It is also stated that while a court of equity will many times sustain transfers by the husband to the wife on account of the duty and obligation for the support and maintenance of the wife, it is against public policy to have these agreements in a family, by which each may forfeit to the other all or part of his or her property on account of certain shortcomings which he or she may have. This, it is said, sets each party in a position of benefiting by the frailties and mistakes of the other, and cannot be sustained on the theory of public policy. Bosea v. Lent, 90 New York Supplement, 41. ELECTIONS. (BALLOTS — DISTINGUISHING MARKS — INDORSEMENT BY JUDGE) SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. Choisser r. York, 71 Northeastern Reporter. 940, contains a holding that the distinguishing marks which will invalidate a ballot need not necessarily be placed on the ballot itself. It appeared in that case that when the votes of a precinct were counted, three democratic ballots had folded in them pieces of colored paper, and that at the polls a person working for the democratic ticket exhibited pieces of paper of that color and stated that any one voting such ticket, with such colored paper therein, would receive two dollars the next day at a certain store. These colored papers were held to be distinguishing marks justifying the rejection of the ballot. It is also decided in this case, that the pro vision of the Illinois statute, that one of the judges shall give a voter a ballot on the back of which such judge shall indorse his initials, is not satisfied by the use of a stamp bearing the initials of one of the judges. EVIDENCE. (EFFECT OF UNCONTROVERTED TESTIMONY — SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES) SOUTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT. The fact that mere circumstances may have an effect, which is practically equivalent to probative force, is well illustrated by Iowa State Bank of Ottumwa v. Sherman & Bratager, 103 Northwestem Reporter, 19. It there appeared that a bank had discounted a note for a corporation, and in
an action on the note it was contended that the transfer was not in good faith. There was no evidence with respect to the transaction, except that given by the president and cashier of the bank who testified that it was in good faith. It appeared, however, that the president was the treasurer and a director and stockholder in the corporation, and that the cashier was secretary of the corporation and a stockholder therein, and that the note was discounted without inquiry and its proceeds placed to the credit of the corpora tion against which there was a large over-draft. These facts, it is held, were sufficient in spite of the uncontroverted testimony of the president and cashier, to justify submission to the jury of the question whether the transfer of the note was bona fide. GAMBLING CONTRACTS. (FUTURES — PUR CHASE ON MARGIN FOR PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE BUSINESS) NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT. North Carolina Laws 1899, p. 233, c. -221, prohibited in effect all wagering contracts or betting on the rise or fall in the prices of any commodity, with the intention that instead of delivery there should be paid merely the differ ence between the contract price and the market value of the article on the day specified. Under this statute it is held that a dealer in wholesale merchandise, who purchased pork on margin merely to protect his contract with customers and with no intention to require actual delivery, is indictable. This sort of transaction would seem to come very near to being, in its effect, a sort of insurance. A merchant who desires to protect himself in this manner may, however, find some consolation in the further holding that, where a person engaged in business buys or sells futures to avoid risks in his business by reason of possible fluctuations in the commodities which he needs in the ordinary course of his business, retaining in good faith the right to call for de livery, and there is no intention not to exact delivery, the contract is valid, though he may think it probable that he will not need to call for delivery. Such contract is authorized by Laws 1905, c. 538, § 7, permitting persons engaged in manufacturing or wholesale merchandising to purchase or sell the necessary commodities re quired in their business. State v. Clayton, 50 Southeastern Reporter, 866. INSANE PERSONS. (HUSBAND'S LIABILITY FOR SUPPORT OF WIFE) WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT. One of the few cases dealing directly with the
