Hardy v. Hunt
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. The facts are, that some time in August, 1857, plaintiff gave one O’Brien a check upon a banker, payable to the order of O’Brien, for five hundred dollars. This was done to enable O’Brien to bet that sum with one Harris on the election for Sheriff of Sacramento County.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. The facts are, that some time in August, 1857, plaintiff gave one O’Brien a check upon a banker, payable to the order of O’Brien, for five hundred dollars. This was done to enable O’Brien to bet that sum with one Harris on the election for Sheriff of Sacramento County. O’Brien undertook to make the bet for plaintiff—the plaintiff charging O’Brien to make the bet in his (O’B.’s) own name, and not disclose the plaintiff’s connection with it. O’Brien drew the money on the check and put it in his pocket, together…
1Opinion of the Court
1st. No action can be brought by the plaintiff against the stakeholder after the event has been decided. See Vischer v. Yates, 11 Johns. 23.
The action was brought by the loser to recover back his deposit, not by the winner.
The decision of Kent, C. J., in that case, that after the event the loser might recover back his deposit from the stakeholder, was subsequently overruled, and the doctrine laid down, that after the event no action could be maintained against the stakeholder by either party. Yates v. Foote, 12 Johns. 10, 15; Ruckman v. Pitcher, 1 Comstock, 401, 402, 403, et seq.; Bunn v.…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Vischer v. YatesNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Yates v. FootCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1814
- People v. HoughtalingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Mitchell v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Argenti v. BrannanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Bellingham Bay Boom Co. v. BrisboisWashington Supreme Court · 1896
- Wright v. StewartU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri · 1904
- Agnew v. CroninCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- In re Wright-Dana Hardware Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
- Johnston v. RussellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.