410 



WAGERS. 



Action by 

 broker against 

 principal. 

 Thaeker v. 

 Sardy. 



whicli contained no statement as to where the plaintiffs 

 were stockbrokers, in what markets, if any, they were to 

 deal, or what, if any, were the usages of such markets ; 

 the Court being of opinion upon such construction that it 

 was intended that the defendant should never be liable for 

 anything but the differences, which would make the 

 purchases and sales nominal merely so far as the defendant 

 was concerned. 



In Thacl;er v. Hardy (j), the plaintiff, a broker, was 

 employed by the defendant to speculate for him on the 

 Stock Exchange. To the knowledge of the plaintiff the 

 defendant did not intend to accept the stock bought for 

 him, or to deliver the stock sold for him, but expected that 

 the plaintiff would so arrange matters that nothing but 

 differences should be payable by him. The plaintiff knew 

 that unless he could arrange matters for the defendant as 

 the latter expected, the defendant would be unable to meet 

 the engagements which he might enter into for him. 

 The plaintiff accordingly entered into contracts on behalf 

 of the defendant, upon which he became personally liable, 

 and sued the defendant for indemnity against the liability 

 incurred by him and for commission as broker. It was 

 held by the Court of Appeal, affirming the judgment of 

 Lindley, J., that the employment of the plaintiff by the 

 defendant was not against public policy, and was not 

 illegal at common law, and, further, was not in the nature 

 of a gaming and wagering contract against the provisions of 

 the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 18 ; Bramwell, L.J. (jj), saying 

 that assuming the principal to be entitled by the terms 

 of the bargain, to call on the broker to re-seU the stock, so 

 that instead of taking and paying for it, the former would 

 have to pay only the differences that would not infringe 

 the provisions of the statute, for the principal might take 

 the stock, and hold it as an investment, and adding : " I 

 have no doubt that it continually happens that stock which 

 is bought for a rise is really taken up and held when the 

 market falls. But the broker might be unable to re-sell, if, 

 for instance, he had been ordered to buy shares in an 

 insolvent bank ; so that the transaction really comes to this, 

 that the principal is bound either to take or deliver the 

 stock (as the case may be), but the broker is to endeavour 

 to relieve the principal from liability by buying or selling 



(?) 4 Q. B. D. 685; 48 L. J., 

 Q. B. 289; 39 L. T., N. S. 595; 



27 "W. E. 158. 



ijj) i Q. B. D. at pp. 691, 692. 



