McDonough v. Webster
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
ON exceptions from the superior court. Assumpsit to recover $100, deposited by plaintiff with defendant as stake-holder on a wager. The evidence, not contradicted, tended to show that one Henry Milliken, a few days after the presidential election, bet $25 to $100 that Hayes would be the next president of the U. S.; the plaintiff took the bet.
Read the full summary
ON exceptions from the superior court. Assumpsit to recover $100, deposited by plaintiff with defendant as stake-holder on a wager. The evidence, not contradicted, tended to show that one Henry Milliken, a few days after the presidential election, bet $25 to $100 that Hayes would be the next president of the U. S.; the plaintiff took the bet. On cross-examination, the defendant stated that when the demand was made on him, it had not been decided who was to be president; that after the fourth of March and the inauguration of Hayes, and before the date of the writ, he paid the money to…
1Opinion of the CourtAppletoN, C. J.
The plaintiff bet with one Milliken on the result of the last presidential election. The parties deposited the money with the defendant. The plaintiff, before the 4th of March, 1877, and when the money deposited by him was in the defendant’s hands, demanded the same of him, which he refused to deliver, but paid it to Milliken, whereupon this action was brought.
The instruction that the plaintiff was entitled to recover was in accordance with the statutes of the state as well as with the decisions of the court. E. S., c. 4, § 71. It was decided in Lewis v. Littlefield, 15 Maine, 233, that all…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Love v. HarveyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Padfield v. GreenIllinois Supreme Court · 1877
- West v. HolmesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854