Waugh v. Beck
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer county: Of October Term 1886, No. 173. This was a feigned issue wherein William Waugh was plaintiff and Nicholas Beck was defendant.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer county: Of October Term 1886, No. 173. This was a feigned issue wherein William Waugh was plaintiff and Nicholas Beck was defendant. The following are the facts as they appeared on the trial: Some time in the month of August, 1884, the defendant Beck applied to the plaintiff, to loan or advance him some money for the purpose of purchasing some oil, stating at the same time that his friend, J. C. Cornwell, would advance him a like amount for the same purpose, and that Mr., Cornwell would take control of and manage the purchase of the oil. Some days…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Trunkey
In England wagers were not unlawful or unenforceable at common law, and therefore 'some of the decisions in that country upon -wagering contracts, are inapplicable where such contracts are unlawful.
It has never been held in the highest tribunals of Pennsylvania that a wager is recoverable, and from 1803 the uniform current of authority is to the contrary. Every species of gaming contract, whether of insurance by a valued policv where the insured has no interest, or a bet on the existence of a letter, or the purchase of stocks or other commodities without the intention to deliver or receive…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Edgell v. M'LaughlinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Critcher v. . HollowaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1870
3Cited by7 opinions
- Futch v. SangerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
- Ad-Lee Co. v. MeyerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Conemaugh Brewing Co. v. BennettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- First National Bank v. CarrollSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Charleston State Bank v. EdmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1901
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.