252 FEDEBAii BEPOBXBB. �" In the case of Htckerson v. Benson, 8 Mo. 8, it was held in this state that a wager on the resuit of an election was not within the terms of the statute respecting gaming, although such wagers were against public policy and Sound morality, and void on that ground. And such seems to be the correct View with respect to immoral and fictitious sales of grain and other conmiod- ities, where no delivery is intended by the parties. Such contracts are sim- ply contra honos mores, and the courts will not enforce them, and would not enforce them in the absence of any statute on the subjoct of gaming. The resuit is that judgment must be entered on the notes against both of the defendants for the principal and accrued iiiterest." �The petitions aver that the notes were assigned to the plaintili; and defendant Harrison contends that, therefore, the equities were open. The difference between indorsement and mere assignment is one well known, and the point is well taken, if not cured by what occurred at the trial, and the verdict. See Daniell, Neg. Inst. §§ 745, 729, 741; Heager v. Leshy, 9 Barb. 214; Calder v. Billington, 15 Me. 398 ; Hadden v. Rodkey, 17 Kan. 429. �The usual form of pleading is, when such is the fact, that the notes were indorsed to plaintili; for the rights springing therefrom are quite different from those arising from an ordinary assignment. Hence, the defendants' position in that respect is technically correct; but as the notes produced and the evidence showed an indorsement to plain- tiff, an amendment would have been allowed if attention had been called to the defect. Consequently, the verdict, under the rulings and proofs, must be held to cure that technicalerror; or, if need be, permission given to make the pleadings correspond to the evidence and verdict. �As Alexander was a director in the bank it is contended that the bank is, in law, charged with knowledge of what was known to him, and the following cases are referred to in support thereof : Lemoine V. Bank, 3 Dill. 49; Bank v. Davis, 2 Hill, (N. Y.) 451; Bmk v. Thomas, 2 Mo. App. 367; Bank v. Camphcll, 4 Humph. 394; Toll Bridge Go. v. Bellirorth, 30 Conn. 380. �While the general doctrine is recognized that -what an agent knows his principal is charged with notice of,in transactions where said agent is aeting for the principal, yet a bond director, in asking for a discount of his own paper, is not an agent of the bank, but aeting as the adverse contracting party. Were this held otherwise, no bank could discount paper, to whieh a director is a party, without losing the position of an innocent indorsee for value under the law merchant. Hence, no bank coiild have dealings in commercial paper with any ��� �
