Agreement of plaintiff suing on arbitration award to be bound by award held sufficient consideration to support written contract of defendant who was member of grain and cotton exchange to abide by decisions of arbitration board. Smith v. Gladney (Tex. Civ. App. 1934) 70 S.W. (2d) 342. Evidence held not to show that member of grain and cotton exchange was allegedly coerced to submit dispute to arbitration by knowledge that he would lose his § 2. Definitions membership in exchange if he refused. Smith v. Gladney (Tex. Civ. App. 1934) 70 S.W.(2d) 342. Purchases and sales of grain made by co-operative grain company on Kansas City board of trade in accordance with provisions of Federal Grain Futures Act held lawful transactions and not ultra vires acts; hence directors of company were not liable for sums lost by company in certain of such transactions. Clark v. Murphy (Kan.1935) 49 P. (2d) 973. For the purposes of this chapter "contract of sale" shall be held to include sales, agreements of sale, and agreements to sell. The word "person" shall be construed to import the plural or singular, and shall include individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, and trusts. The word "commodity" shall mean wheat, cotton, rice, corn, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, grain sorghums, mill feeds, butter, eggs, Solanum tuberosum (Irish potatoes), and wool tops. The term "future delivery," as used herein, shall not include any sale of any cash commodity for deferred shipment or delivery. The words "board of trade" shall be held to include and mean any exchange or association, whether incorporated or unincorporated, of persons who shall be engaged in the business of buying or selling commodity or receiving the same for sale on consignment. The words "interstate commerce" shall be construed to mean commerce between any State, Territory, or possession, or the District of Columbia, and any place outside thereof; or between points within the same State, Territory, or possession, or the District of Columbia, but through any place outside thereof, or within any Territory or possession, or the District of Columbia. The words "cooperative association of producers" shall mean any cooperative association, corporate or otherwise, not less than 75 per centum in good faith owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by producers of agricultural products and otherwise complying with sections 291 and 292 of this title, as now or hereafter amended, including any organization acting for a group of such associations and owned or controlled by such associations, provided that business done for or with the United States of America, or any agency thereof, shall not be considered either member or nonmember business in determining the compliance of any such association with said section. The words "member of a contract market" shall mean and include individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, and trusts owning or holding membership in, or admitted to membership representation on, a contract market or given members' trading privileges thereon. The words "futures commission merchant" shall mean and include individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, and trusts engaged in soliciting or in accepting orders for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any contract market and that, in or in connection with such solicitation or acceptance of orders, accepts any money, securities, or property (or extends credit in lieu thereof) to margin, guarantee, or secure any trades or contracts that result or may result therefrom. The words "floor broker" shall mean any person who, in or surrounding any "pit," "ring," "post," or other place provided by a contract market for the meeting of persons similarly engaged, shall engage in executing for others any order for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any contract market, and who for such services receives or accepts any commission or other compensation. The words "the commission" shall mean the Commodity Exchange Commission, consisting of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Attorney General. (As amended June 15, 1936, c. 545, §§ 2, 3, 49 Stat. 1491; April 7, 1938, c. 108, 52 Stat. 205.) Section 13 of Act of June 15, 1936, cited come effective ninety days after June 15, to the text, provided that the amendment 1936. to this section by that Act should be 1. Congressional finding A congressional finding set forth in Commodity Exchange Act (this chapter) that future tradings in butter, eggs, and Irish potatoes obstruct interstate commerce, could not be rejected by Circuit Court of Appeals in absence of anything of which court could take judicial notice and anything in evidence before Congress suggesting that finding was contrary to the facts. Moore v. Chicago Mercantile re § 3. When transaction deemed in interstate commerce; "State" defined For the purposes of this chapter (but not in any wise limiting the definition of interstate commerce in the preceding section) a transaction in respect to any article shall be considered to be in interstate commerce if such article is part of that current of commerce usual in the commodity trade whereby commodity and commodity products and byproducts thereof are sent from one State with the expectation that they will end their transit, after purchase, in another, including in addition to cases within the above general description, all cases where purchase or sale is either for shipment to another State or for manufacture within the State and the shipment outside the State of the products resulting from such manufacture. Articles normally in such current of commerce shall not be considered out of such commerce through resort being had to any means or device intended to remove transactions in respect thereto from the provisions of this chapter. For the purpose of this section the word "State" includes Territory, the District of Columbia, possession of the United States, and foreign nation. (As amended June 15, 1936, c. 545, § 2, 49 Stat. 1491.) Section 13 of Act of June 15, 1936 cited to the text provided that the amendment § 4. Liability of principal for act Words "For the purpose of this chapter" should be inserted at beginning of section. to this section by that Act should become effective ninety days after June 15, 1936. of agent § 5. Resolution declaring dangerous tendency of dealings in commodity futures Transactions in commodity involving the sale thereof for future delivery as commonly conducted on boards of trade and known as "futures" are affected with a national public interest; such transactions are carried on in large volume by the public generally and by persons engaged in the business of buying and selling commodity and the products and byproducts thereof in interstate commerce; the prices involved in such transactions are generally quoted and disseminated throughout the United States and in foreign countries as a basis for determining the prices to the producer and the consumer of commodity and the products and byproducts thereof and to facilitate the movements thereof in interstate commerce; such transactions are utilized by shippers, dealers, millers, and others engaged in handling commodity and the products and byproducts thereof in interstate commerce as a means of hedging themselves against possible loss through fluctuations in price; the transactions and prices of commodity on such boards of trade are susceptible to speculation, manipulation, and control, and sudden or unreasonable fluctuations in the prices thereof frequently occur as a result of such speculation, manipulation, or control, which are detrimental to the producer or the consumer and the persons handling commodity and products and byproducts thereof in interstate commerce, and such fluctuations in prices are an obstruction to and a burden upon interstate commerce in commodity and the products and byproducts thereof and render regulation imperative for the protection of such commerce and the national public interest therein. (As amended June 15, 1936, c. 545, § 2, 49 Stat. 1491.) Section 13 of Act of June 15, 1936 cited to this section by that Act should become to the text provided that the amendment effective ninety days after June 15, 1938. § 6. Prohibition against dealings in commodity futures; general exceptions It shall be unlawful for any person to deliver for transmission through the mails or in interstate commerce by telegraph, telephone, wireless, or other means of communication any offer to make or execute, or any confirmation of the execution of, or any quotation or report of the price of, any contract of sale of commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any board of trade in the United States, or for any person to make or execute such contract of sale, which is or may be used for (a) hedging any transaction in interstate commerce in commodity or the products or by-products thereof, or (b) determining the price basis of any such transaction in interstate commerce, or (c) delivering commodity sold, shipped, or received in interstate commerce for the fulfillment thereof, except, in any of the foregoing cases, where such contract is made by or through a member of a board of trade which has been designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as a "contract market," as hereinafter provided in this chapter, and if such contract is evidenced by a record in writing which shows the date, the parties to such contract and their addresses, the property covered and its price, and the terms of delivery: Provided, That each board member shall keep such record for a period of three years from the date thereof, or for a longer period if the Secretary of Agriculture shall so direct, which record shall at all times be open to the inspection of any representative of the United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Department of Justice. (As amended June 15, 1936, c. 545, §§ 2, 4, 49 Stat. 1491, 1492.) Section 13 of Act of June 15, 1936 cited to the text provided that the amendment to this section by that Act should become effective ninety days after June 15, 1936. See annotations under section 1 of this title. 2. Jurisdiction of state courts Contracts entered into in Tennessee between principal and broker for purchase and sale by broker on Chicago Board of Trade of grain for future delivery held subject to both Tennessee and federal law. Palmer v. Love (1934) 80 S.W.(2d) 100, 18 Tenn.App. 579. Contracts entered into in Tennessee between principal and broker for purchase and sale by broker on Chicago Board of Trade of grain for future delivery would be illegal if in violation of state law, irrespective of where grain was to be delivered. Palmer v. Love (1934) 80 S.W. (2d) 100, 18 Tenn.App. 579. 3. Validity of contracts Contract for sale of grain for future delivery is valid, though seller has no grain at the time and can get it only by buying it in the market before date of delivery, provided that at time of making the contract the parties intend that grain shall be delivered by the seller and that the purchase price shall be paid by the buyer. Palmer v. Love (1934) 80 S. W.(2d) 100, 18 Tenn.App. 579. Burden of proving that transaction was я wager rests upon party alleging it. Palmer v. Love (1934) 80 S.W. (2d) 100, 18 Tenn.App. 579. Purchase of commodities or stocks on margin is not necessarily a gambling transaction, since "margin" is merely security. Palmer v. Love (1934) 80 S.W. (2d) 100, 18 Tenn.App. 579. Contract giving one party or the other an option to carry out the transaction or not at pleasure is not a "wager," and is legal unless forbidden by statute. Palmer v. Love (1934) 80 S.W. (2d) 100, 18 Tenn.App. 579. "Set-off," as used on boards of trade and exchanges, is a method by which a contract to purchase is set off against a contract to sell without the formality of an exchange of warehouse receipts or other actual delivery and, in legal effect, is a "delivery." Palmer v. Love (1934) 80_S.W.(2d) 100, 18 Tenn.App. 579. In action by broker's executrix against principal for balance due as result of contracts entered into in Tennessee between broker and principal for purchase and sale by broker on Chicago Board of Trade of grain for future delivery, evidence held to show that broker did not intend to gamble and that transactions were legal as regards broker. Palmer v. Love (1934) 80 S.W.(2d) 100, 18 Tenn.App. 579. In action by broker's executrix against principal for balance due as result of contracts entered into in Tennessee between broker and principal for purchase and sale by broker on Chicago Board of Trade of grain for future delivery, burden was on principal to show that contracts were gambling contracts. Palmer v. Love (1934) 80 S.W.(2d) 100, 18 Tenn. App. 579. § 6a. Excessive speculation as burden on interstate commerce; trading limits; hedging transactions; application of section (1) Excessive speculation in any commodity under contracts of sale of such commodity for future delivery made on or subject to the rules of contract markets causing sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in the price of such commodity, is an undue and unnecessary burden on interstate commerce in such commodity. For the purpose of diminishing, eliminating, or preventing such burden, the com |