Stacy v. Foss
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
ExceptioNs from the District. Court. This was assumpsit, to recover the sum of twenty-five dollars, deposited with the defendant by the plaintiff, as a stakeholder, on a bet on a horse-trot.
Read the full summary
ExceptioNs from the District. Court. This was assumpsit, to recover the sum of twenty-five dollars, deposited with the defendant by the plaintiff, as a stakeholder, on a bet on a horse-trot. The following facts were admitted by the defendant — that a bet was made between the plaintiff and one Rufus Hewitt, and that each deposited twenty-five dollars in his hands, to be given up to the winner, after the trial of speed was over — and that after the trot was over, the plaintiff forbade the stakeholder, the defendant, paying over the money to said Hewitt and demanded of him his twenty-five…
1Opinion of the Court
The, opinion of the Court was delivered by
Weston C. J.
It is conceded, that the bet out of which this controversy grew, is not a valid contract. And it has been decided by this Court, that all wagers in this State are unlawful. Lewis v. Littlefield, 15 Maine R. 233. The action however is resisted on the ground, that the stakeholder is a party to the unlawful contract, and that both plaintiff and defendant being in pari delicto, the law will lend its aid to neither. And a distinction is taken between notice to the stakeholder, repudiating and disaffirming the contract, before and after the hap*337pe…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Vischer v. YatesNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Yates v. FootCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1814
- M'Cullum v. GourlayNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- McKeon v. CahertyNew York Supreme Court · 1830
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bernard v. TaylorOregon Supreme Court · 1893
- Smathers v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Martin v. FrancisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917