White v. Wilson's Administrator
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 54 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM GRAVES CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Money advanced by one at request of another, to pay losses already-incurred in gaming, where the one advancing the money was not engaged in the gaming, may be recovered.
Read the full summary
Case 54 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM GRAVES CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Money advanced by one at request of another, to pay losses already-incurred in gaming, where the one advancing the money was not engaged in the gaming, may be recovered. (Pope v. McKinney, 3 B. M., 93; English v. Young, 10 B. M., 141; 3 Dana, 51; 7 J. J. M., 16.) This case is also distinguished from Triplett v. Seelbach, 91 Ky., 30. 1. The appellant was not a participant in the game, was not interested in it in any way, and neither won nor lost any of the money sued for, but simply at the request of Wilson, after the gaming was…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE DuRELLE
delivered the opinion of the court: ■
This suit was brought by J. T. Wilson’s administrator against his heirs and creditors to settle his estate. Among the claims filed with the commissioner was a note in favor of appellant for $138.50 and an account in his favor for $325, aggregating $463.50. They were proven in the usual form, the additional witness to the .account being T. H. Glover.
Exceptions were filed to the claims upon two grounds. First, that the claims were all for money borrowed from appellant for the purpose of betting on and playing at a game of cards called “poker,”…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Triplett v. SeelbachCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1890
3Cited by4 opinions
- St. Louis Fair Ass'n v. CarmodySupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Lilienthal v. Carpenter, Baggott & Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Timmons v. TimmonsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
- Commonwealth of Kentucky Ex Rel. J. Michael Brown, Secretary of the Governor's Executive Cabinet v. Stars Interactive Holdings (Iom) Ltd., F/K/A Amaya Group Holdings (Iom) Ltd.Kentucky Supreme Court · 2020