US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

DICKSON V. UHLMANN GRAIN CO., 288 U. S. 188 (1933)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 288 U. S. 188 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Dickson v. Uhlmann Grain Co., 288 U.S. 188 (1933)

Dickson v. Uhlmann Grain Co.

No. 63

Argued November 16, 17, 1932

Decided February 6, 1933

288 U.S. 188


1. Contracts between broker and customer for pretended purchases and sales of grain for future delivery which do not contemplate that any grain shall be actually bought, sold, or delivered on behalf of the customer violate the Missouri Bucket Shop Law when made and executed in that State. Pp. 288 U. S. 192, 288 U. S. 194.

2. To an action by the broker for commissions and advances, it is a bar that the contracts are thus invalid. P. 288 U. S. 196. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 288 U. S. 189

3. Such contracts do not lose their local character merely because, with the knowledge of the customer, the broker makes actual corresponding purchases and offsetting sales on exchange in other states, and the illegality of the contracts with the customer is not affected by the fact that the exchange transactions are executed on federal "contract markets," are conducted in form as if based on genuine orders from the customer, are in conformity with the federal regulations, and may be valid as between the broker on the exchanges. P. 288 U. S. 193.

4. The Federal Grain Futures Act forbids "future" trading not carried on in compliance with its regulations, but evinces no intention to authorize all such trading if there is compliance, and it does not supersede state laws that make gambling in grain futures illegal. P. 288 U. S. 198.

5. The Missouri Bucket Shop Law, as here involved, is not in conflict with the Grain Futures Act. P. 288 U. S. 200.

56 F.2d 525 reversed.

Certiorari, 287 U.S. 581, to review the reversal of a judgment for the present petitioners in an action by the Grain Company to recover amounts claimed to be due to it from them for its services and advances as broker in purchases and sales of grain for future delivery. The trial was to the District Court without a jury. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 288 U. S. 190

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™