50-121.
History: L. 1899, ch. 77, § 1; R.S. 1923, 50-121; Repealed, L. 2000, ch. 136, § 28; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. No recovery for losses or gains resulting from gambling contracts. Carey v. Myers, 92 Kan. 493, 501, 141 P. 602; Investment Co. v. McFarlin, 93 Kan. 526, 144 P. 842; Grain Co. v. Elevator Co., 94 Kan. 360, 363, 146 P. 1139.
2. Statute does not forbid bona fide contracts for future deliveries. Investment Co. v. McFarlin, 93 Kan. 526, 144 P. 842; Grain Co. v. Elevator Co., 94 Kan. 360, 363, 146 P. 1139.
3. Broker cannot recover for services in promoting gambling contracts. Investment Co. v. McFarlin, 93 Kan. 526, 144 P. 842.
4. Jury must determine facts concerning transaction; legality of consideration for promissory note considered. Ross & Waldo v. Holman, 97 Kan. 331, 332, 155 P. 37.
5. Where business sought to be enjoined interstate in character federal regulations exclusive. State, ex rel., v. Rosenbaum Grain Co., 115 Kan. 40, 222 P. 80.
6. Federal regulations controlling illegality of dealings no defense to note. Goffe & Carkener v. Henneberger, 132 Kan. 211, 212, 294 P. 672.
7. Grain-futures contract valid where only one party intended no delivery. Wolcott-Lincoln, Inc., v. Huff, 139 Kan. 366, 31 P.2d 13.
8. Statute is inapplicable to interstate transactions; federal act governs. Clark v. Murphy, 142 Kan. 426, 429, 49 P.2d 973.
|
|