Fuller v. Hutchings
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, County of San Francisco. This is an action upon a check of the defendants, composing the firm of Sweetzer, Hutchings & Co., for $2500, dated on the 22d of September, 1857, and drawn upon Tallant & Wilde, bankers, at San Francisco, and payable to S. L. James, or bearer. It was admitted, on the trial, that the check was given by the defendant Hutchings, for losses at a public banking-game called “faro,” to one Wm.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, County of San Francisco. This is an action upon a check of the defendants, composing the firm of Sweetzer, Hutchings & Co., for $2500, dated on the 22d of September, 1857, and drawn upon Tallant & Wilde, bankers, at San Francisco, and payable to S. L. James, or bearer. It was admitted, on the trial, that the check was given by the defendant Hutchings, for losses at a public banking-game called “faro,” to one Wm. D. Chapman, and that there was no other consideration for it; that Chapman, on the same day, presented it for payment,…
1Opinion of the Court
Field, J., after stating the facts of the case, delivered the opinion of the Court
2ConcurrenceBaldwin, J.
The question presented in this case is, whether the illegality of the consideration, for which the check was given, is available as a defence against the plaintiff. As between the parties, it is not denied that the consideration may be inquired into. As between them, the consideration was illegal. Graining is prohibited by statute; it is declared to be a felony in the keeper of the game, and a misdemeanor in the player. As to all persons except a bona fide holder without notice, the check is void. The statute so…
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pana v. BowlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Union Collection Co. v. BuckmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Bedell v. HerringCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Slemons v. PatersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Landauer v. Sioux Falls Imp. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1897
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.