Betts v. Hillman.
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeals from three judgments of a district court in the city of New York. These actions were brought by Frederick F. Betts against Sherlock Hillman and one Mathews, to recover the sums of $100, $150, and $200 respectively, for money lost at three sittings, by a game commonly called faro. The defendant Matthews was not served; the defendant Hillman answered in each of the actions, denying the allegations of the complaint.
Read the full summary
Appeals from three judgments of a district court in the city of New York. These actions were brought by Frederick F. Betts against Sherlock Hillman and one Mathews, to recover the sums of $100, $150, and $200 respectively, for money lost at three sittings, by a game commonly called faro. The defendant Matthews was not served; the defendant Hillman answered in each of the actions, denying the allegations of the complaint. Judgments were rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and against Hill-man, in each of the actions. In the second and third actions, Hillman moved at the trial to dismiss the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.*—Brady, J.
The right of the plaintiff to recover the money lost depends upon the statute, there being no *186remedy at common law. (Ruckman a. Pitcher, 13 Barb., 556; Meech a. Stoner, 19 N. Y., 26; Weyburn a. White, 22 Barb., 82.) The action by the statute must be brought against the winner or person to whom the money shall be paid or delivered. (1 Rev. Stat., 662, §§ 9-14.) The money lost by the plaintiff in this case was not paid or delivered to the defendant, unless paid to him as the partner of Mathews, the co-defendant (who was not served with process), and by Mathews, or…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Meech v. . StonerNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Weyburn v. WhiteNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- Ruckman v. PitcherNew York Supreme Court · 1852
3Cited by3 opinions
- Weltmer v. BishopMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Tompkins v. SmithThe Superior Court of New York City · 1882
- Willard v. Doran & Wright Co.New York Supreme Court · 1888