Vandolah v. McKee
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Clark Circuit'Court. — Now. Edwin R. McKee, Judge. (1) The only question in this case is, Did the-stakeholder have notice not to pay over the money to-the other party to the bet before he paid it over ? The-notice in evidence certainly is sufficient for that purpose as well as the oral evidence of notice to the defendant not to pay over the money, and the evidence-of the defendant himself shows that the next day after the written notice was served on him and…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clark Circuit'Court. — Now. Edwin R. McKee, Judge. (1) The only question in this case is, Did the-stakeholder have notice not to pay over the money to-the other party to the bet before he paid it over ? The-notice in evidence certainly is sufficient for that purpose as well as the oral evidence of notice to the defendant not to pay over the money, and the evidence-of the defendant himself shows that the next day after the written notice was served on him and after he had been verbally notified by the defendant not to pay it' over, he went to the bank where it was deposited,…
1Opinion of the Court
GOODE,. J.
Plaintiff and one Ragsdale laid a wager on the result of the election pending in the autumn of 1900 for Governor of Missouri; plaintiff betting, it is alleged in the statement, fifty dollars that Alexander M. Dockery would not receive thirty thousand majority over Joseph Flory for Governor, Rags-dale betting the same amount that said Dockery would receive that majority.
■ McKee was the stakeholder in whose hands the respective parties put the money wagered. After the election Vandolah first claimed all the money, as he admitted, but swore that afterwards, when a dispute arose between…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Weaver v. HarlanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Kiefer v. CarrierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by2 opinions
- Baker v. J. W. McMurry Contracting Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1920
- Jonesboro v. United Iron Works Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906