Hoss v. Layton
Ohio Supreme Court
Deserved from the district court of Marion county, into which court the cause came by appeal. The plaintiff declared in a plea of debt founded upon the act for the prevention of gambling, passed March 12, 1831, and took effect June. 1, 1831, in the common pleas of Marion county. ! The first and second counts in the declaration *were as follows : For [353 that, whereas, the said Moses B. Layton, on the 10th day of November, a. d. 1851, at said county of Marion, whs indebted,…
Read the full summary
Deserved from the district court of Marion county, into which court the cause came by appeal. The plaintiff declared in a plea of debt founded upon the act for the prevention of gambling, passed March 12, 1831, and took effect June. 1, 1831, in the common pleas of Marion county. ! The first and second counts in the declaration *were as follows : For [353 that, whereas, the said Moses B. Layton, on the 10th day of November, a. d. 1851, at said county of Marion, whs indebted, and still is indebted to the said Henry Hoss, the plaintiff, in the sum of five hundred and fifty dollars for money,…
1Opinion of the CourtThurman, C. J.
There is no valid objection to either the first or the second count of the declaration. It was decided in Veach v. Elliott, 1 Ohio St. 139, that the act for the prevention of gaming (Swan’s Stat. new ed. 439), comprehends every kind of bet or wager. And as to the form of the declaration, the 3d section of the act provides that it shall be sufficient in law for the plaintiff to allege that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff, or received to the plaintiff’s use the money so lost and paid, or converted the goods won of the plaintiff to the defendant’s use, whereby the plaintiffs *355action…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Palmer v. LordNew York Court of Chancery · 1822
- Faris v. KirtleyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1837