Future

That which may or will be hereafter: as,' future — advances, damage, earnings, estate, qq. v. See also Devise, Executory; Expectancy; Remainder; Sale; Time; Use, 3. Futures. The expression "dealing in futures" has grown out of those purely speculative transactions in which there is a nominal contract of sale for future delivery, but where in fact none is ever intended or executed. The nominal seller does not have or expect to have the stock or merchandise he purports to sell, nor does the nominal buyer expect to receive it or to pay the price. Instead, a purcentage or " margin " is paid, which is increased or diminished as the market rates go up or down, and accounted for to the buyer. This is simply speculation and gambling; mere wagering on prices within a given time.', "One person says: I %\'ill sell you cotton (for exaipple) at a certain time in the future for a certain price. You agree to pay that price, knowing that he has no cotton to deliver at the time, but with the understanding that, when the time for delivery arrives, you are to pay him the difference between the market value of the cotton and the price you agreed to pay, if cotton declines, and, if it advances, he is to pay you the difference between what you promised to give and the advanced market }irice." * There is no gambling unless both sides gamble; and from the intent or belief of one party it is not fair to presume a like intent or belief as to the other party. ^ See further Wagek, 2. 21; 13 E. I. 20; 30 Vt. 224; 2 Munf. 234; 5 id. 272; 18Wis. 103; 1 Ves. Sr. 97; 1 Jarman, Wills, 501, 596, note; 2 Williams, Ex. 1017. ' Weaver v. The S. G. Owens, 1 Wall. Jr. 369, 359 (1849), Grier, J. ' Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court, 3 How. 147 (181.5). 2 Kmg V. Quidnick Company, 11 R. I. 138 (1883), Stiness, J. See also Hatch v. Douglas, 48 Conn. 137 (1880), Carpenter, J. < Cunningham v. Nat. Bank of Augusta, 71 Ga. 403 (1883), cases, Blantord, J.; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Watson, 30 F. R. 6,53 (1887). 5 Bangs V. Hornicb, 30 F. R. 98 (1887), cases. See generally Marshall v. Thurston, 3 Lea, 740 (1879), cases; Bartlett v. Smith, 13 F. R. 203 (1883); Irwin v. Millar, 110 U. S. 499, 508-11 (1884), cases; Kirkpatrick v. Adams, G. G. In a few words, originally beginning with u or w, prefixed to the form which comes through the French, as, in guard for ward; in law-French, equivalent to our to. Whence, also, the doublets gage and wage, guaranty and warranty, guardian and ward, garnish and warn; also seen in warden, warren, and award.* G. S. General statutes.