or violation of law, he will be entitled to be reimbursed by his principal for the outlay. The principal is bound to indemnify his agent or broker for losses incurred in executing his orders. But if one employs a broker to purchase and sell grain with the illegal purpose of "cornering" the market or controlling the price thereof, and this fact is known to the agent or broker, the latter cannot recover of his principal for services or money advanced in the execution of such illegal purpose, nor can the employer recover of his agent for moneys received by him in such illegal dealings upon the market. When parties enter into a contract which is illegal or contrary to public policy, the courts will not assist either of them, but will leave them in the position in which their illegal acts have placed them. The party advancing money or performing services under such a contract cannot recover for the same of his employer, nor will he be liable to his employer for any profits derived by him in the business of his agency. The enhancement of the price of an article of prime necessity, such as wheat or

To deliver such shares to the customer, when required by him, upon the receipt of the advances and commissions accruing to the broker; or, 6. To sell such shares upon the order of the customer, upon payment of the like sums to him. and account to the customer for the proceeds of such sale. Under this contract, the customer undertakes: 1. To pay a margin of ten per cent. on the current market value of the shares. 2. To keep good such margin, according to the fluctuations of the market. 3. To take the shares so purchased on his order whenever required by the broker, and to pay the difference between the percentage advanced by him and the amount paid therefor by the broker. The position of the broker is two-fold. Upon the order of the customer, he purchases the shares of stocks

desired by him. This is a clear act of agency. To complete the purchase, he advances from his own funds for the benefit of the customer ninety per cent. of the purchase money. Quite as clearly he does not in this act as agent, but assumes a new position. He also holds or carries the stock for the benefit of the purchaser until a sale is made by the order of the purchaser, or upon his own action. In thus holding or carrying he stands also upon a different ground from that of a broker or agent, whose office is simply to buy and sell. To advance money for the purchase, and to hold and carry stocks, is not the act of a broker as such. In so doing he enters upon a new duty, obtains other rights, and is subject to additional responsibilities." Markham v. Jaudon, 41 N. Y. 235.

other articles, for purposes of extortion, is against public policy, and a combination or agreement to make a "corner" on stock or grain by buying it up, so as to control the market, and then purchasing for future delivery, is illegal, and a party thereto whose funds have been used by his direction in carrying out the agreement cannot recover the same back. A person dealing at a particular market will be taken to have dealt according to the known general custom and usage of that market, and if he employs another to act for him in buying or selling at such market, he will be held as intending that the business shall be conducted according to such general usage and custom, and this has been held the rule whether he in fact knows of the custom or not.1 In a recent case in Tennessee, it was held that where several confederate together for an unlawful purpose, e. g., stock gambling or dealing in "futures," the acts of one selected to transact the unlawful business are the acts of all, and each confederate is jointly and severally liable therefor.2 On this point, the court said: "Where it appears that several have unlawfully combined and confederated to gamble with and defraud another through a selected party, each confederate participating is liable for the entire amount received, as the money is received for all, and by all, according to the devised alleged method under which they were all jointly operating."3

1 Samuels v. Oliver, 130 Ill. 73. See also Roundtree v. Smith, 108 U. S. 269; Baldwin v. Flagg, 36 N. J. Eq. 48; Baker v. Drake, 66 N. Y. 518; Wicks v. Hatch, 62 N. Y. 535; Knowlton v. Fitch, 52 N. Y. 288; Earl v. Howell, 14 Abb. N. Cas. 474; Thacker v. Hardy, L. R. 4 Q. B. Div. 685; Ex parte Rogers, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 207; Logan v. Musick. 81 Ill. 415; Durant v. Burt, 98 Mass. 161; Maxton v. Gheen, 75 Pa. St. 166; Smith v. Bouvier, 70 Pa. St. 325; Jackson v. Foote, 12 Fed. Rep. 37; Ashton v. Dakin, 4 H. & N. 867.

2 Dunn v. Bell, 85 Tenn. 581; S. C., 4 S. W. Rep. 41.

3 McGrew v. City Produce Exchange, 85 Tenn. 572; s. c., 4 S. W. Rep. 38, 39. "Before the passage of this law, such a transaction as dealing in futures, of itself, was not unlawful. Nor was it unlawful unless it was the intent of both parties that there should be no real purchase or delivery. This act was intended to make it unlawful if either had no intention of effectuating a real purchase or sale. It was designed to suppress the evil of dealing in futures, and limit

§ 97. Statutory Prohibition.—-In many, if not all of the States, the creating of a corner, or the dealing in futures, with a view to creating a corner, is prohibited by statute. In Illinois, the statute is, 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, stock of any railroad or other company, or gold, or forestalls the market by spreading false rumors to influence the price of commodities therein, or corners the market or attempts to do so in relation to any of such commodities, shall be fined not less than $10, nor more than $1,000, or confined in the county jail, not exceeding one year, or both; and all contracts made in violation of this section shall be considered gambling contracts, and shall be void." As Chicago has

such operation to bona fide sales and purchases by those who wished to sell to those who wished to buy. In making the seller responsible for the intent of the buyer, and the buyer responsible for the intent of the seller, it intended to suppress gambling by confining the business of buying and selling for future delivery in such limits as would practically preclude the possibility of it. The bona fide dealer can still operate, but he cannot do so upon any terms which do not protect the community against the pernicious and ruinous speculation in the rise and fall of prices. He is obliged, for his own safety, as this act provides extreme penalties, to avoid the speculator, and buy only for the legitimate demands of necessity and trade." Ibid., 578.

1 Starr & Curtis, Ann. Stat. Illinois, ¶ 253, p. 1295. Sec. 3166, of the Code of Tennessee, reads as follows: Any sale, contract or agreement for the sale of bonds, stocks, grain, cotton or other produce, property, commodity, article

or thing for future delivery, where

either of the contracting parties, buyer or seller, is dealing simply for the margin, or on the prospective rise or fall in the price of the article or thing sold, and where either of the said contracting parties have had no intention or purpose of making actual delivery or receiving the property or thing in specie, shall be deemed and is hereby declared gaming. Section 3168 is as follows: If any person shall buy or sell or contract for the purchase or sale of any property or thing enumerated in section 3166, and in violation of any of the provisions of sections 3166 and 3167, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, for every such violation shall be punished as provided by law for the punishment of gaming, but he shall not be fined less than twenty-five dollars, nor more than two hundred and fifty dollars, or imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding one year, or both fined and imprisoned within these limits."

been the chief seat of operations of this character, the Illinois statute has been followed by other States. The statute of Missouri is, as follows: "All purchases and sales, or pretended purchases and sales, or contracts and agreements for the purchase and sale of grain,

either on margin or otherwise, without any intention of receiving or paying for the property so sold, and all the buying or selling, of such property, on margin or on optional delivery, where the party selling the same or offering to sell the same does not intend to have the full amount of the property on hand or under his control to deliver upon such sale, or when the party buying any of such property, or offering to buy the same, does not intend actually to receive the full amount of the same if purchased, are hereby declared to be gambling and unlawful, and the same are hereby prohibited." The copying of all the statute on this subject would not accord with the plan of this work, but the above will serve as samples. In the details of these statutes there is some divergence, but in general the law is indicated by these illustrations.

1 § 3931, Rev. Stat. Missouri.

§ 98. Introductory.In the main the law relating to trades unions and other labor organizations is of very recent origin. The idea of these associations, as the means of securing the ends for which they are organized, and the methods employed, are essentially modern. They are an outgrowth of the civilization and of the industrial conditions of the present age. The law has been determined by the decisions of a recent date, or is the result of such legislation as existing conditions have appeared to demand. A few unimportant English cases of a date anterior to the present century were reported, but we have no report of any case in this country until a later period. The first American case which contributed to the determination of the law as it now stands was that of the Commonwealth v. Carlisle. This case was tried by Mr. Justice Gibson in the Court of Nisi Prius, in Philadelphia, in 1821. It was held