Tarleton v. Baker
Supreme Court of Vermont
Indebitatus Assumpsit for money had and received, money paid, laid out and expended, and money lent. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury.
Read the full summary
Indebitatus Assumpsit for money had and received, money paid, laid out and expended, and money lent. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury. On trial the plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove, that about the first of August, 1840, the plaintiff and one George M. Kidder agreed, at St. Albans, in this State, to meet each other at Dunham, in Lower Canada, on the fifth day of the same August, and there deposit with the defendant, as a stakeholder, the sum of three hundred dollars, — the plaintiff to deposit two hundred dollars and the defendant one hundred ; that on the fifth day of August…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, J.
In this state a wager, like the one in question, would be altogether illegal; not only at common law, as tending to promote corruption and a spirit of gaming, and therefore opposed to public policy, — but as being moreover expressly prohibited by statute. And so far as the law of Canada was shown upon the trial, it would seem to correspond with the English common law. It is doubtless true, that in Canada, as in England, wagers upon indifferent subjects are valid, and that an action will lie to enforce them. The evidence from Canada speaks of…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Corson v. NeathenySupreme Court of Colorado · 1886
- Wright v. StewartU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri · 1904
- Wilkinson v. TousleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- West v. HolmesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Lewis v. BrutonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.