Sales and contracts to sell are not in their nature wagers, but the machinery of stock exchanges and produce exchanges has been used for the purpose of speculation in making bargains which have been held to amount to wagers. Statutes in some jurisdictions have increased the severity of the rules of the common law. Aside from such statutes, the fact that transactions are entered into on a margin does not make them gaming contracts,26 though they are made such by statute in California.27 Nor is a contract giving one party or the other an option to carry out the transaction or not at pleasure, a wager. It is legal unless forbidden by statute.28

25 Am. Dec. 451; Stoddard v. Martin, 1 R. I. 1, 2, 19 Am. Dec. 643; Col-lamer v. Day, 2 Vt. 144; West v. Holmes, 26 Vt. 530; and adding: Ed-gell v. McLaughlin, 6 Whart. 176, 36 Am. Dec. 214; Rice v. Gist, 1 Strob. 82. To the cases thus cited may be further added Chester v. Brannan, 3 Calif. 328; Boughner v. Meyer, 5 Colo. 71, 40 Am. Rep. 139; Western Union Tel. Co. v. State, 165 Ind. 492, 510, 76 N. E. 100, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 153; Central Trust, etc., Co. v. Respass, 112 Ky. 606, 614, 66 S. W. 421, 56 L. R. A. 479, 99 Am. St. Rep. 317; Gib-ney v. Olivette, 196 Mass. 294, 82 N. E. 41; Winchester v. Nutter, 52 N. H. 507, 13 Am. Rep. 93; Bernard v. Taylor, 23 Oreg. 416, 31 Pac. 968, 18 L. R. A. 859, 37 Am. St. Rep. 693; Waugh v. Beck, 114 Pa. 422, 6 Ail. 923, 60 Am. Rep. 354. And the general recognition of the invalidity of wagering contracts of insurance points in the same direction.

25 This was especially true in New York, until by statute all wagering contracts were made illegal. See 3 Kent's Comm. 277, 278. See also as upholding the English common-law rule as to wagers: Morgan v. Pettit, 4 111. 529; Smith c. Smith, 21 111. 244, 74 Am. Dec. 100; Walker v. Armstrong, 54 Tex. 609.

26 Universal Stock Exchange v, Stevens, 66 L. T, (N. S.) 612; Forget v. Ostigny, [1895] A. C. 318; Union Nat. Bank v. Carr, 15 Fed. 438; Clews v. Jamieson, 182 U. S. 461, 21 S. Ct. 845, 44 L. Ed. 1183; Hatch v. Douglas, 48 Conn. 116, 40 Am. Rep. 154; Skiff v. Stoddard, 63 Conn. 198, 26 Atl. 874,28 Atl. 104, 21 L. R. A. 102; Titoomb v. Richter, 89 Conn. 226, 93 Atl. 526; Corbett v. Underwood, 83 111. 324, 25 Am.' Rep. 392; Oldershaw v. Knowles, 101 111. 117; Perm v. Parker, 126 111. 201, 18 N. E. 747, 2 JL R. A. 336, 9 Am. St. Rep. 571; Fisher v. Fisher, 113 Ind. 474, 15 N. E. 832; Sond-heim v. Gilbert, 117 Ind. 71, 18 N. E. 687, 5 L. R. A. 432, 10 Am. St. Rep. 23; Ball v. Campbell, 30 Kans. 177, 2 Pac. 165; Sawyer v. Taggart, 14 Bush, 727; Durant v. Burt, 98 Mass. 161; Billiard v. Smith, 139 Mass. 492, 2 N. E. 86; Bingham v. Scott, 177 Mass. 208, 58 N. E. 687; Clay v. Allen, 63 Miss. 426; Stenton v. Jerome, 54 N. Y. 480; Gruman v. Smith, 81 N. Y. 25; Minor v. Beveridge, 141 N. Y. 399, 36 N. E. 404, 38 Am. St. Rep. 804; Taylor's Estate, 192 Pa. St. 304, 309, 313, 43 Atl. 973, 975, 73 Am. St. Rep. 812; Smyth v. Glendinning, 194 Pa. St. 550, 45 Atl. 364; Fearson v. little, 227 Pa. 348, 76 Atl. 72; Win-ward v. Lincoln, 23 R. I. 476, 51 Atl.

In Illinois and perhaps other States, however, such statutes have been passed.29 A contract to sell goods in the future, which the seller does not own at the time, is, aside from statute, not only legal but common.30 In some jurisdictions, however, such contracts also are made illegal by statute under special circumstances which cannot always be assumed to be identical with the single requirement of the common law that the parties must not contemplate settling the contract by payment of differences instead of performing it by actual delivery.31

106, 64 L. R. A. 160; Allen's Exec. v. Virginia Trust Co., 116 Va. 319, 82 S. . 104.

27 Cashman v. Root, 80 Gal. 373, 26 Pac. 883, 12 L. R. A. 511, 23 Am, St. Rep. 482; Wetmore v. Barrett. 103 Cal. 246, 37 Pac. 140; Sheey v. Shinn, 103 Cal. 325, 37 Pac. 393; Rued v. Cooper, 119 Cal. 463, 51 Pac. 704; Parker v. Otis, 130 Cal. 322, ,62 Pac. 571, 927, 92 Am. St. Rep. 56.

28 Union Nat. Bank v. Carr, 15 Fed. 438; Hanna v. Ingram, 93 Ala. 482, 9 So. 621; Godman v. Meixsel, 65 Ind. 32; Mason v. Payne, 47 Mo. 517; Pieronnet v. Lull, 10 Neb. 457, 6 N. W. 759; Bigelow v. Benedict, 70 N. Y. 202, 26 Am. Rep. 573; Story p. Salomon, 71 N. Y. 420; Harris v. Turn-bridge, 83 N. Y. 92, 38 Am. Rep. 398; Lester v. Buel, 49 Ohio St. 240, 252, 30 N. E. 821, 34 Am. St. Rep. 556; Kirk-patrick v. Bonsall, 72 Pa. St. 155.

29 See as to construction of the Illinois statutes, Ubben v. Binnian, 182 11I. 508, 55 N. E. 552; Loeb v. Stern, 198 111. 371, 64 N. E. 1043; Miller v. Sincere, 273 11l. 194,112 N. E. 664, and cases cited. Stewart v. Dodson, 282 111. 192, 118 N. E. 405, 1 A. L. R. 1544.

30 See Clews v. Jainieson, 182 U. S. 461, 45 L. Ed. 1183, 21 S, Ct. 845;

Bond v. Hume, 243 U. S. 15, 61 L. Ed. 565; Springs v. James, 137 N. Y. App. Div. 110, 121 N. Y. S. 1054; International Life Ins. Co. v. Stuart (Tex. Civ. App.), 201 S. W. 1088.

31 See Fortenbury v. State, 47 Ark. 188, 1 S. W. 58; Johnson v. Miller, 67 Ark. 172, 53 S. W. 1052; Hartnett p. Wilson, 31 Cal. App. 678, 161 Pac. 281; Branch v. Palmer, 65 Ga. 210; Moss v. Exchange Bank, 102 Ga. 808, 30 S. E. 267; Singleton v. Bank of Monticello, 113 Ga. 527, 38 S. E. 947; Wright v. Vaughan, 137 Ga. 52,72 S. E. 412; Carey v. Myers, 92 Kan. 493, 141 Pac. 602, L. R. A. 1916 B. 1056; Lemonius v. Mayer, 71 Miss. 514, 14 So. 33; Dillard v. Brenner, 73 Miss. 130, 18 So. 933; Violett v. Mangold (Miss.), 27 So. 875; Weld v. Austin, 107 Miss. 279, 65 So. 247; Cohn v. Brinson, 112 Miss. 348, 73 So. 59, Ann. Cas. 1918 E. 134; Connor v. Black, 119 Mo. 126, 24 S. W. 184,132 Mo. 150, 33 S. W. 783; Edwards Brokerage Co. v. Stevenson, 160 Mo. 516, 61 S. W. 617; Staples v. Gould, 9 N. Y. 520; Randolph v. Heath, 171 N. C. 383, 88 S. E. 731; Coffe v. Wilhite, 56 Okl. 394, 156 Pac. 169; Gist v. Western Union Tel. Co., 45 S. C. 344, 23 S. E. 143; Riordan v. Doty, 50 S. C. 537, 27 S. E. 939; Saunders v. Phelps Co., 53 S. C. 173,