McKeon v. Caherty
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover money placed in the hands of the defendant, as a stake-holder, upon the event of a trotting match. The declaration was in the common form, for money had and received, money paid, &c. Plea, the general issue.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover money placed in the hands of the defendant, as a stake-holder, upon the event of a trotting match. The declaration was in the common form, for money had and received, money paid, &c. Plea, the general issue. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Oaklet ; and at the trial the plaintiff produced and read in evidence a contract in writing, between himself and one David Lane, of the tenor following, viz: New-York, August the 19th, 1827. “ Thirty-one days after date, David Lane, on the first part, and “ Hugh McKeon, of the second part, agree to…
1Opinion of the CourtOakley, J.
This was an action of assumpsit, to recover money deposited in the hands of the defendant as a stakeholder on a trotting match, made by the plaintiff with one Lane. Lane claimed to be the winner, on the decision of the match. The declaration was in the common form, plea non-assumpsit. The principal question in the case is, whether the action can be sustained at all, in its present form.
By the first section of the act to prevent horse-racing, [1 R. L. 222.] all racing or trotting of horses, for any bet, is declared to be a common and public nuisance, and an offence against the state; and all…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Whitwell v. CarterMichigan Supreme Court · 1856
- Bevins v. ReedThe Superior Court of New York City · 1849
- Arrieta v. MorrisseyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1866
- Commonwealth v. MooreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1825