v. Bauder, 82 Iowa, 171; S. C., 47 N. W. 1001. This, however, applies to optional sales only. If the sale be absolute, and the delivery only is future, the contract is still valid: White v. Barber, 123 U. S. 392; S. C., 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 221; Wolcott v. Heath, 78 Ill. 433; Logan v. Brown, 81 Ill. 415.

VII. When the contract is illegal, and cannot be enforced, a security founded on that contract is void in the hands of the principal, of the broker, if particeps criminis, or of a purchaser with notice: Steers v. Lashley, 6 T. R. 61; Re Green, 7 Biss. C. Ct. 338; Embrey v. Jemison, 131 U. S. 336; S. C., 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 776; Brown v. Alexander, 29 Ill. App. 626; Cothran v. Ellis, 125 Ill. 496; S. C., 16 N. E. Rep. 646; Davis v. Davis, 119 Ind. 511; S. C., 21 N. E. Rep. 1112; Swartz's App., 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 131; Griffith's App., 16 W. N. C. (Pa.) 249; Dempsey v. Harm (Pa.), 12 Atl. Rep. 27; S. C., 9 Cent. Rep. 615; Brua's App., 55 Pa. 294; Fareira v. Gabell, 89 Pa. 89; Griffiths v. Sears, 112 Pa. 523; Oliphant v. Markham, 79 Tex. 543; S. C., 15 S. W. Rep. 569; Barnard v. Backhaus, 52 Wis. 593. If the broker be innocent he can recover, and so can a bona fide holder: Lehman v. Strasberger, 2 Woods C. Ct. 554; Pearce v. Rice, 142 U. S. 28; S. C., 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 130; Sondheim v. Gilbert, 117 Ind. 71; Crawford v. Spencer, 92 Mo. 498. But when the making of such a contract is declared a crime by statute, a security founded thereon is void, even in the hands of a bona fide holder: Hawley v. Bibb, 69 Ala. 52; Cunningham v. Bank, 17 Cent. L. J. 470; Bank v. Curningham, 75 Ga. 366; Snoddy v. Bank, 88 Tenn. 573; Bank v. Carroll, 80 Iowa, 11; S. C., 45 N. W. Rep. 304.

VIII. One who is a party to such an illegal contract cannot, either at common law or in equity, recover money paid in furtherance of the transaction. As we have seen the broker cannot recover his advances on behalf of his principal, nor. can the principal recover the money deposited with the broker as margins: Lawton v. Blitch, 83 Ga. 663; S. C., 10 S. E. Rep. 353; O'Brien v. Luques, 81 Me. 46; S. C., 16 Atl. Rep. 304; Burt v. Myer, 71 Md. 467; Gregory v. Clark, 39 Mich. 337; Ruchizky v. De Haven, 97 Pa. 202; Stewart

v. Parnell, 147 Pa. 523; S. C., 29 W. N. C. 537; 23 Atl. Rep. 838; Sowles v. Bank, 61 Vt. 375; S. C., 17 Atl. Rep. 791. There are occasional exceptions to this rule. Thus the customer can recover if he intended a bona fide sale and delivery: Gregory v. Clark, 39 Mich. 337. A minor can recover money so paid by him during minority: Ruchizky v. De Haven, 97 Pa. 202. When the broker acknowledges a balance in his hands in favor of the customer, the latter may recover, if he can show that the broker received the money for his use: Peters v. Grim (Pa.), 30 W. N. C. 177; S. C., 24 Atl. Rep. 192; Repplier v. Jacobs, 30 W. N. C. 180; S. C., 24 Atl. Rep. 194; Floyd v. Patterson, 72 Tex. 202; S. C., 10 S. W. Rep. 526. So a deposit of margins can be recovered if the customer revoke his illegal instructions: Dancy v. Phelan, 82 Ga. 243; S. C., 10 S. E. Rep. 205. Or if his complaint does not on its face show an illegal contract: Clarke v. Brown, 77 Ga. 606.

By statute, however, such payments are made recoverable in many of the States of the Union. The question depends on the wording of the particular statute; but in general either party may recover of the other: Cushman v. Root, 89 Cal. 373; S. C., 26 Pac. Rep. 883; Kennedy v. Stout, 26 Iil. App. 133; N. Y. & Chic. Grain & Stock Exch. . Mellen, 27 Ill. App. 556; Lyons v. Hodges (Ky.), 13 S. W. Rep. 1076; Peck v. Doran, 46 Hun. (N. Y.) 454; Copley v. Doran, 1 N. Y. Suppl. 888; Lester . Buel (Ohio), 30 N. E. Rep. 821. Though it has been held that the broker cannot recover in Illinois: White v. Barber, 123 U. S. 392; S. C., 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 221.

One who knowingly lends money for the purpose of furthering a gambling transaction in futures cannot recover it: Waugh . Beck, 114 Pa. 422; Plank . Jackson, 128 Ind. 424; S. C., 26 N. E. Rep. 568, but if he take no part in the transaction mere knowledge on his part that the money was to be so used, will not preclude him from recovery: Armstrong v. Bank, 133 U. S. 433; S. C., 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 450; Jackson v. Bank, 125 Ind. 347; S. C., 25 N. E. Rep. 430. The true test is whether or not he requires the aid of the

illegal transaction to make out his case; if so, he cannot recover; if not, he can: Armstrong v. Bank, supra.

IX. In all cases of alleged gambling contracts in futures, the question as to their nature is one of fact, not of law; for the jury, not for the court: Washer v. Bond, 40 Kans. 84; S. C., 19 Pac. Rep. 323; Fareira v. Gabell, 89 Pa. 89; Thompson v. Reiber, 123 Pa. 457; S. C., 23 W. N. C. 180; 16 Atl. Rep. 793.

kind of future contract that

X. There is one very curious has frequently come before the courts during the past few years. This is what is known as a 'Bohemian Oats" contract. By it a quantity of oats, professedly of a special brand, but in reality of ordinary kind, is sold to a farmer at a price far above its real value, and a bond is given by the seller to buy back a certain number of bushels of the crop at a high figure, promising a profit to the unwary agriculturist. With but one exception, Watson v. Blossom, 2 N. Y. Suppl. 551; S. C. Aff., 4 N. Y. Suppl. 489, these contracts have been held illegal as against public policy, and notes given on them void, except in the hands of a bona fide holder, subject to the exception in the latter case due to the operation of criminal statutes, as explained in Schmueckle v. Waters, 125 Ind. 265; S. C., 25 N. E. Rep. 281; Glass v. Murphy (Ind. App.). 30 N. E. Rep. 1097; Kain v. Bare (Ind. App.), 31 N. E. Rep. 205; Merrill v. Packer, So Iowa, 542; S. C., 45 N. W. Rep. 1076; Shipley v. Reasoner, 80 Iowa, 548; S. C., 45 N. W. Rep. 1077; Sutton v. Beckwith, 68 Mich. 303; S. C., 36 N. W. Rep. 79; Mace . Kennedy, 68 Mich. 389; S. C., 36 N. W. Rep. 187; McNamara . Gargett, 68 Mich. 454; S. C., 36 N. W. Rep. 218. The first Iowa case on this subject, Hanks v. Brown, 79 Iowa, 560; S. C., 44 N. W. Rep. 811, decided that such a contract was not obnoxious to the statute of that State against gambling contracts, strangely enough forgetting all about the common law and public policy; but this omission has been corrected by the later cases from that State cited above.

XI. A contract to "corner" the market by buying up stock or goods is illegal at common law as against public

v. Parnell, 147 Pa. 523; S. C., 29 W. N. C. 537; 23 Atl Rep. 838; Sowles v. Bank, 61 Vt. 375; S. C., 17 Atl. Rep. 791. There are occasional exceptions to this rule. Thus the customer can recover if he intended a bona fide sale and delivery: Gregory v. Clark, 39 Mich. 337. A minor can recover money so paid by him during minority: Ruchizky v. De Haven, 97 Pa. 202. When the broker acknowledges a balance in his hands in favor of the customer, the latter may recover, if he can show that the broker received the money for his use: Peters v. Grim (Pa.), 30 W. N. C. 177; S. C., 24 Atl. Rep. 192; Repplier v. Jacobs, 30 W. N. C. 180; S. C., 24 Atl. Rep. 194; Floyd v. Patterson, 72 Tex. 202; S. C., 10 S. W. Rep. 526. So a deposit of margins can be recovered if the customer revoke his illegal instructions: Dancy v. Phelan, 82 Ga. 243; S. C., 10 S. E. Rep. 205. Or if his complaint does not on its face show an illegal contract: Clarke v. Brown, 77 Ga. 606.

By statute, however, such payments are made recoverable in many of the States of the Union. The question depends on the wording of the particular statute; but in general either party may recover of the other: Cushman v. Root, 89 Cal. 373; S. C., 26 Pac. Rep. 883; Kennedy v. Stout, 26 Iil. App. 133; N. Y. & Chic. Grain & Stock Exch. v. Mellen, 27 Ill. App. 556; Lyons v. Hodges (Ky.), 13 S. W. Rep. 1076; Peck v. Doran, 46 Hun. (N. Y.) 454; Copley v. Doran, 1 N. Y. Suppl. 888; Lester . Buel (Ohio), 30 N. E. Rep. 821. Though it has been held that the broker cannot recover in Illinois: White v. Barber, 123 U. S. 392; S. C., 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 221.

One who knowingly lends money for the purpose of furthering a gambling transaction in futures cannot recover it: Waugh v. Beck, 114 Pa. 422; Plank v. Jackson, 128 Ind. 424; S. C., 26 N. E. Rep. 568, but if he take no part in the transaction mere knowledge on his part that the money was to be so used, will not preclude him from recovery: Armstrong . Bank, 133 U. S. 433; S. C., 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 450; Jackson v. Bank, 125 Ind. 347; S. C., 25 N. E. Rep. 430. The true test is whether or not he requires the aid of the

illegal transaction to make out his case; if so, he cannot recover; if not, he can: Armstrong v. Bank, supra.

IX. In all cases of alleged gambling contracts in futures, the question as to their nature is one of fact, not of law; for the jury, not for the court: Washer v. Bond, 40 Kans. 84; S. C., 19 Pac. Rep. 323; Fareira v. Gabell, 89 Pa. 89; Thompson v. Reiber, 123 Pa. 457; S. C., 23 W. N. C. 180; 16 Atl. Rep. 793.

X. There is one very curious kind of future contract that has frequently come before the courts during the past few years. This is what is known as a "Bohemian Oats" contract. By it a quantity of oats, professedly of a special brand, but in reality of ordinary kind, is sold to a farmer at a price far above its real value, and a bond is given by the seller to buy back a certain number of bushels of the crop at a high figure, promising a profit to the unwary agriculturist. With but one exception, Watson v. Blossom, 2 N. Y. Suppl. 551; S. C. Aff., 4 N. Y. Suppl. 489, these contracts have been held illegal as against public policy, and notes given on them void, except in the hands of a bona fide holder, subject to the exception in the latter case due to the operation of criminal statutes, as explained in Schmueckle v. Waters, 125 Ind. 265; S. C., 25 N. E. Rep. 281; Glass v. Murphy (Ind. App.), 30 N. E. Rep. 1097; Kain v. Bare (Ind. App.), 31 N. E. Rep. 205; Merrill v. Packer, So Iowa, 542; S. C., 45 N. W. Rep. 1076; Shipley v. Reasoner, 80 Iowa, 548; S. C., 45 N. W. Rep. 1077; Sutton v. Beckwith, 68 Mich. 303; S. C., 36 N. W. Rep. 79; Mace v. Kennedy, 68 Mich. 389; S. C., 36 N. W. Rep. 187; McNamara 7. Gargett, 68 Mich. 454; S. C., 36 N. W. Rep. 218. The first Iowa case on this subject, Hanks v. Brown, 79 Iowa, 560; S. C., 44 N. W. Rep. 811, decided that such a contract was not obnoxious to the statute of that State against gambling contracts, strangely enough forgetting all about the common law and public policy; but this omission has been corrected by the later cases from that State cited above.

XI. A contract to "corner" the market by buying up stock or goods is illegal at common law as against public