The test adopted in the absence of statute distinguishes between agreements to buy and sell in which an actual delivery of the property is contemplated, and similar agreements in which it is contemplated merely that a settlement shall be made between the parties based on fluctuations in the market price. An agreement of the former kind is legal; one of the latter kind involves wagering and is illegal,32 The importance of observing that objection to recovery is not so much the character of the contract as the guilt of the plaintiff 33 is illustrated in wagering contracts of this sort; for if either of the parties contracts in good faith, intending that the goods shall be actually delivered, he is entitled to the benefit of his contract, no matter what may have been the secret purpose or intention of the other party; 34 while the party guilty of an intent to gamble cannot recover.35

31 S. E. 54; Mackay Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Bain (Tex. Civ. App.), 163 S. W. 98. See also in regard to "short" sales of stock, Fiske v. Doucette, 206 Mass. 275, 92 N. E. 255; Adams v. Dick, 226 Mass. 46, 115 N. E. 227.

32 Thacker v. Hardy, 4 Q. B. D. 685; Universal Stock Exchange v. Strachan, [1896] A. G. 166; In re Baxter, 152 Fed. 137, 81 C. C. A. 355,11 Ann. Cas. 437; Ware v. Pearsons, 173 Fed. 878, 98 C. C. A. 364; Murphy v. Spring, 200 Fed.

372, 118 C. C. A. 524, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 539; James v. Clement, 223 Fed. 385, 138 C. C. A. 621; Binning-ham, etc., Sav. Co. v. Currey, 175 Ala.

373, 57 So. 962; Barnes v. State, 77 Ark. 124,91S. W. 10; Pollitz v. Wicker-sham, 150 Cal. 238, 88 Pac. 911; Tit-comb v. Richter, 89 Conn. 226, 93 Atl. 526; Hartnett v. Wilson, 31 Cal. App. 678; Kilpatrick v. Richter, 139 Ga. 643, 77 S. E. 1065, 143 Ga. 470, 85 S. E. 319, 146 Ga. 277, 91 S. E. 51; Lamson v. West, 201 111. App. 251; Pelouze v. Slaughter, 241 HI. 215, 89 N. E. 259; Carey v. Myers, 92 Kans. 493, 141 Pac. 602, L. R. A. 1916 B. 1056; Stafford County Grain Co. v. Rock Milling, etc., Co., 94 Kans. 360, 146 Pac. 1139; Timmons v. Timmons, 145 Ky. 259, 140 S. W. 164; Lancaster v. Ames, 103 Me. 87, 68. Atl. 533, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 229, 125 Am. St. Rep. 286; Richter v. Poe, 109 Md. 20, 71 Atl. 420, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 174; Harvey v. Merrill, 150 Mass. 1,22 N. E. 49,5 L. R. A. 200,15 Am. St. Rep. 159; Chandler v. Prince, 221 Mass. 495, 109 N. E. 374; Cohn v. Brinson, 112 Miss. 348, 73 So. 59, Ann. Cas. 1918 E. 134; Smith v. Bailey (Mo. App.), 209 S. W. 945; Sunderland v. Hibbard, 97 Neb. 21,149 N. W. 57; Blessing v. Smith, 74 N. J. Eq. 593, 70 Atl. 933; Weld v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 199 N. Y. 88, 92 N. E. 415; Stiebel v. Lissberger, 166 N. Y. App. D. 164, 151 N. Y. S. 822; Orvis v. Holt-Morgan Mills, 173 N. C. 231, 91 S. E. 948; Lester v. Buel, 49 Ohio St. 240, 30 N. E. 821, 34 Am. St. Rep. 556; Snider v. Harvey, 215 Pa. 538, 64 Atl. 687; Gwathmey v. Burgiss, 104 S. C. 280, 88 S. E. 816; Coles v. Morrow, 128 Tenn. 550, 162 S. W. 577; Wolfe v. Andrews (Tex. Civ. App.), 192 S. W. 266; Pate v. Wilson Bros. Mercantile Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 208 S. W. 235; Talbot v. Martindale (Tex. Civ. App.), 211 S. W. 302; Beamish v. Richardson, 49 Can. S. C. 595; and see cases infra n. 34. 33 See supra, Sec. 1630.