Plaintiff brought an action for indemnity for what he had been called upon to pay in respect of these transactions.
A case between broker and principal.
This was a case it will be noticed turning on dealings between a broker and a member of the outside public, and so differed from Grizewood v. Blane. The judgment of Lindley, J., decided the following points:—
(1.) That agreements between buyers and sellers of stock to pay differences are gaming contracts within 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109, s. 18.
(2.) That that section of the statute only affects the contract which constitutes the wager. In this case plaintiff was bound to enter into the contract himself as principal. The contract between himself and the real principal was not a wager-contract, but an implied contract of indemnity.
(3.) That an agent is entitled to be indemnified against all liabilities incurred on behalf of his principal, unless such were illegal.
(4.) That the statute made gaming transactions void, and not illegal.
(5.) It had been argued that such gambling transactions were illegal at Common Law on the ground of public policy, relying on Lord Tenterden’s opinion in Bryan v. Lewis. But this was overruled in Hibblethwaite v. M‘Morrine.[[245]] Besides, it had required a special Act of Parliament to make gambling in the funds illegal, and that Act was repealed by 23 & 24 Vict., c. 28.
(6.) He did not infer as a fact that this contract was a contract for differences. The real nature of the transaction is stated above.
It will be seen, therefore, that the judgment treats of the case from two points of view: first, granted the main contract were in the nature of a wager. Held, in this case, that according to previous authorities, the right of an agent to be indemnified, was not affected. Second, that as a matter of fact, there was no wagering in the transaction at all, so that 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109, did not affect the question.