Reichly v. Maclay
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Union county. Robert P. Maclay against Jacob Reichly. This was an action to recover the sum of #150, part of a bet made by Michael Kleckner with Jacob Reichly, on the result of the election. #300 were deposited by each party in the hands of Samuel Aurand, as the stake-holder. After the election, and while the money was yet in the hands of the stake-holder, Kleckner gave him this notice: “ Mr. Samuel Aurand.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Union county. Robert P. Maclay against Jacob Reichly. This was an action to recover the sum of #150, part of a bet made by Michael Kleckner with Jacob Reichly, on the result of the election. #300 were deposited by each party in the hands of Samuel Aurand, as the stake-holder. After the election, and while the money was yet in the hands of the stake-holder, Kleckner gave him this notice: “ Mr. Samuel Aurand. Sir — I inform you not to give up the $300 which I bet with Jacob Reichly some time ago; the men who own the greater part of the money gave me the same notice…
1Per curiam
The stake-holder was bound to regard no notice which did not proceed directly from the owner of the money; and Kleckner admitted that he himself was entitled only to a part of it, which he subsequently recovered. He could not maintain an action for any other part of it, and he was incompetent to take any step in regard to it. How then could the stake-holder tell whether the true owner did not mean to let his part of the stake be paid over to the winner ? It might naturally be supposed that if he did not intend to do so, he would have given notice to the stake-holder himself, rather than to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mytinger v. SpringerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- Morris v. Hannick, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County1874