Donahoe v. McDonald
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 23 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL prom bourbon court op common pleas. 1. The person making the deposit has the right under the statute to recover the money of the stakeholder, although he acted as agent of another.
Read the full summary
Case 23 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL prom bourbon court op common pleas. 1. The person making the deposit has the right under the statute to recover the money of the stakeholder, although he acted as agent of another. (Gen. Stats., chap. 47, sec. 5; Graves v. Eord, 3 B. M., 115; 15 B. M., 636; 18 B. M., 776.) ‘2. If the lower court was right in overruling the demurrer to the petition, it should, on the motion of appellant, have required appellee to make Mitchell and Tucker parties thereto, and required them to set up their claim, if any, either had thereto. (Hutchings & Co. v. Stillwell, 18 B.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion op the court.
“ The stakeholder of any money or other thing that may be staked on any bet or wager shall, when thereto *124notified, return the same to the person making the stake or deposit, and for failing to do so, the amount or value of the stake may be recovered from him by tbe party aggrieved.” (Sec. 5, chap. 47, Gen. Stats.)
Donahoe, tbe appellant, wbo made tbe deposit — the-amount of tbe bet — did so as tbe agent of Mitchell and Tucker, or one of them, and upon notice to tbe appellee (wbo was tbe stakeholder) demanding a return of tbe money, and a refusal by…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Mitchell v. Georgia & Alabama RailwaySupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- LaFontaine v. Wilson Ex Rel. UgastCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1946
- Ely v. Hartford Life Ins.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
- Hale v. HaleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
- Martin v. FrancisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.