Triplett v. Seelbach
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 4 — PETITION ORDINARY TRANSFERRED TO EQUITY APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. -It is not a misjoinder when seeking to recover of appellees as “ winners’ of the money lost at gaming to also pray a recovery of them because they invited or induced appellant to play.
Read the full summary
Case 4 — PETITION ORDINARY TRANSFERRED TO EQUITY APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. -It is not a misjoinder when seeking to recover of appellees as “ winners’ of the money lost at gaming to also pray a recovery of them because they invited or induced appellant to play. (McKinly v. Call, 1 Mon., 54; Powell v. Weiler, 11 B. M., 187; Jones v. Johnston, 10 Bush, 650; Hinkle v. Commonwealth, 4 Dana, 518.) 2. Appellees must he regarded as “ winners ” within the meaning of the statute. (Maston v. Commonwealth, 18 B. M., 491; Stahel v. Commonwealth, 7 Bush, 388-; MeGrew v. City Produce…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BENNETT
delivered the opinion oe the court.
The appellant sued the appellees under the provisions of the second and ninth sections of chapter 47 of the General Statutes, to recover from them one thousand nine hundred and five dollars, which he alleges that they, as partners, won from him at games *32of cards called poker, played in two houses in the city of Louisville, one house at the comer of Sixth and Market streets, the other at the corner of Sixth and Main streets.
The said second section is as follows: “If any person shall lose to another at one time, or within any twenty-four hours,…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Cartright v. McElwainCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
- John L. Dunlap & Co. v. PerryCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1921
- Lairmore v. Drake and BoroughOregon Supreme Court · 1948
- White v. Wilson's AdministratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1897
- Timmons v. TimmonsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.