Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/432

 (Wis.) 18 N. W. 443; Hill v. Levy, (D. C.) 98 Fed. 94; Parker v. Moore, (C. C. A.) 125 Fed. 807; Ponder v. Jerome Hill Cotton Co. 100 Fed. 373; 40 C. C. A. 416.

The contracts were in accordance with the customs and usage of the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce and there was no evidence that delivery could not be legally exacted

Barnes v. Smith, 159 Mass. 344; 34 N. E. 403; Board of Trade v. Kinney, et al 130 Fed. 507; 64 C. C. A. 669; The John Miller Co. v. Klovstad. supra; Board of Trade v. Christie, supra.

The rules and regulations of the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce are not in conflict with the Minnesota statute with reference to bucket any of the transactions involved. shop. John Miller Co. v. Klovstad, supra; Sampson v. Camperdown Cotton Mills 82 Fed. 833.

The functions of the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce and all other such exchanges are necessary and they are created by law and sanc- tioned by the courts of the land. John Miller Co. v. Klovstad, supra; Bibb v. Allen, supra; State v. Duluth Board of Trade, et al (Minn.) 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1260; Clews v. Jamieson, supra; Chicago Board of Trade v. Christie G. & S. Co. supra.

Contracts for the future delivery of merchandise of tangible property are not void whether such property is in existence in the hands of the seller or to be subsequently acquired. John Miller Co. v. Klovstad. supra; Bibb v. Allen, supra.

It is well settled that the burden of proof is upon the defendant to prove that the contracts were illegal. The law presumes that they are ligitimate transactions. John Miller Co. v. Klovstad, supra; Chicago Board of Trade v. Christie, G. & S. Co. supra; Clews v. Jamieson, supra; Bibb v. Allen, supra.

, C. J. This is an action to recover on a promissory note in the sum of $4.00o, with interest thereon from the 20th day of April, 1917, to date of maturity, at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum until due, and 10 per cent. per annum thereafter. The issues of fact were presented to a jury. At the close of the testimony the court directed a verdict in plaintiff's favor for the amount of the note and interest. Judgment was entered on the verdict, and this appeal is from the judgment. The complaint states a cause of action in the ordinary form on a promissory note. The answer admits. the execution and delivery of the