O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 13-9-3 (2019)

Contracts of sale for future delivery of cotton, grain, stocks, or other commodities, absent bona fide intention of parties as to delivery, execution of contract upon floor of exchange declared null and void; penalty for entering into or assisting entering into such contracts

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any contract of sale for future delivery of cotton, grain, stocks, or other commodities shall be null and void and unenforceable in any court by any party thereto where it is not the bona fide intention of a party to the contract that the cotton, grain, stocks, or other commodities mentioned therein are to be delivered, but that the contract be settled according to or upon the basis of the public market quotations or prices made on any board of trade, exchange, or other similar institution, without any actual bona fide execution and the carrying out of such contract upon the floor of such exchange, board of trade, or similar institution, in accordance with the rules thereof.

(b) Any person, either as agent or principal, who enters into or assists in making a contract of sale for the future delivery of cotton, grain, stocks, or other commodities of the nature provided for in subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned for a period not exceeding two years.

History

(Ga. L. 1929, p. 245, §§ 3, 6; Code 1933, §§ 20-603, 20-9901.)

Annotations

Cross references. - Gambling generally, § 16-12-20.

Law reviews. - For note, ‘‘Recovery of

Losses on Cotton Futures,’’ see 1 Ga. L. Rev. No. 1, p. 43 (1927).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Fenner & Beane v. Calhoun, 56 Ga. App. 823, 194 S.E. 51 (1937);

Mitchell-Huntley Cotton Co. v. Lawson, 377 F. Supp. 661 (M.D. Ga. 1973).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Violation of statute relating to bucket shops or bucket shop transactions as

ground of action by customer or patron, 113 ALR 853.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2022–2022 · leading case: Langley v. State, 868 S.E.2d 759 (Ga. 2022).
Langley v. State, 868 S.E.2d 759 (Ga. 2022). · cites it 4× “, OCGA §§ 13-9-3 (b) (entering into contract for sale of commodities without bona fide intention to deliver), 16-9-58 (fraudulent failure to pay for delivered agricultural products or chattels), 16-11-126 (i) (2) (second or subsequent conviction for carrying a weapon without a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.