
    George P. Kingsbury et al., Respondents, v. Michael Kirwan, Appellant.
    To render a contract for the purchase and sale of property void as a wagering contract, it must appear to have been the understanding when the contract was made that the property should not be delivered, and thp-t only the difference in the market price should be paid or received.
    (Argued March 28, 1879;
    decided May 20, 1879.)
    This action was brought by plaintiffs, as cotton brokers, to recover losses on short sales of cotton made by them on defendant’s orders.
    The' principal defense was that the alleged contracts of sale were mere wagers on the future market price, and so void under the statute. The court state the rule as above, and held that the dealings of the parties were not shown to have been wagering transactions so clearly as to have justified the court in nonsuiting plaintiffs.
    
      Thomas Bracken for appellant.
    
      Albert Gallup for respondents.
   Per Curiam

opinion for affirmance.

All concur, except Miller, J.. absent.

Judgment affirmed.  