Betts v. Bache
The Superior Court of New York City
This is an action to recover money lost by betting and gaming. The complaint alleges that about the first of October, 1861, the defendant received a certain sum of money belonging to or on account of the plaintiff, and which is now due him, “ contrary to the provisions of the statute against betting and gaming.” To this a demurrer is put in, assigning as grounds therefor that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
1Opinion of the Court
Robertson, Justice.
The Revised Statutes provide (3 R. S., 5th ed., 633, § 2) that “ if an action of assumpsit be brought for money received contrary to the provisions of any statute, it shall be sufficient * * to allege * * that the same was received contrary to the provisions of such statute, referring to the same, as prescribed in the *198last section.” In that section (§ 1) it is provided that “ if an action of debt” be brought for money, goods, or other things so received, it shall be sufficient “ to allege that the defendant, &c. was indebted” in such sum or the value of such goods, “…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Very v. LevySupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Neves v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Cady v. AllenNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- Union Mutual Insurance v. Osgood & AldenThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853
- Hall v. SouthmaydNew York Supreme Court · 1853
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Tompkins v. SmithThe Superior Court of New York City · 1882
- Ottomann v. FletcherThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1889
- John v. EytingeThe Superior Court of New York City · 1867