Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/593

 BLAKEMOEB V. HEYMAN. 581 BliAKBMOBB, MaTO & Co. V. HbTMAN. {Circuit Court, D, Kentueky. April 6, 1881.) 1. Commercial Usage — Genekaii Law. In order to have a commercial usage take the place of the general law, it must be so uniformly acquiesced in, and for such a leugth of time, that the jury will feel themselves constrained to flnd that it entered into the minds of the parties and formed a part of the con- tract. Lyoiu V. Ovlbertmn, 83 111. 37. 2. Sajue— New York Cotton ExohANaB. Therefore, the laws, ruies, and regulations which govern the mem- bers of the New York cotton exchange can liave no effect upon the legal rights of a party to a contract, who did not know of or acquiesce in the same. — [Es. Henry Burnett, for plaintiffs. Gilbert, McOonagill de Reed, for defendant. Barh, D. J. This is a suit to recover a balance of $687.19, which plaintiffs alleged they paid for defendant at his instance and request. Plaintiffs are commission merchants, doing business in New York, and are members of the cotton exchange of that city. They deal in produce on commission. Defend- ant is a dry goods marchant, doing business inHenderson, Ken- tueky. Plaintiffs bought on the cotton exchange, New York, for defendant, 100 baies of cotton, to be delivered February, 1879. This contract matured, and they say they closed it out according to the raies and regulations of the cotton ex- change, and there was a loss of $44.75. They, atthe request of defendant, sold March 24, 1879, for his account, 100 baies of cotton, June delivery. They sold March 26, 1879, upon like request and account, 100 baies of cotton, July delivery. These sales were made on the cotton exchange, and at the prevailing rates. Plaintiffs then had in hand as margin $660, less the $44.75 loss on the purchase of 100 baies of cotton for February delivery. The market advanced, and plaintiffs demanded of defend- ant additional margin, and he sent them, A.pril 1, 1879, $75, and promised, April 3, 1879, to send them $300 more, but failed to do so. The plaintiffs, on the fifteeuth of April,