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

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 288 U.S. 181, click here.

Dickson v. Uhlmann Grain Co.

No. 63

Argued November 16, 17, 1932
Decided February 6, 1933
288 U.S. 188

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

Syllabus

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. 192, 194.

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

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. 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. 198.

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