
    16587.
    Lasseter v. O’Neill.
    Decided October 16, 1926.
    Complaint; from city court of Floyd county — Judge Bale. May 26, 1925.
    The Supreme Court in this case held, that “An agreement for the purchase and sale of cotton on margin, commonly called dealing in futures, when the intention or understanding of the parties is to receive or pay the difference between the agreed price and the market price at the time.of the settlement,’ though it is an agreement which is condemned by the Civil Code (1910), § 4258, as unlawful, is not a gaming contract in the sense and meaning of the Civil Code, § 4256, to the effect that money paid upon spch consideration may be recovered back from the winner, by the loser, under certain conditions stated.”
    
      James Maddox, for plaintiff. Denny & Wright, for defendant.
    Appeal and Error, 4 O. J. p. 1247, n. 33 New.
   Bell, J.

Under the rulings of the Supreme Court in answer to questions certified in this case, the petition failed to set forth a cause of action, and the general demurrer thereto was properly sustained. See Lasseter v. O’Neill, 162 Ga. 826 (135 S. E. 78).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.  