Weaver v. Harlan
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Qreene Circuit Court. (1) The petition does not state facts sufficient to entitle respondent to recover against the appellant as stakeholder. The petition does not state that appellant received the money sued for, knowing that it was staked on any betting declared gaming by the statutes of this state, and appellant’s objection to the introduction of any evidence should have been sustained.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Qreene Circuit Court. (1) The petition does not state facts sufficient to entitle respondent to recover against the appellant as stakeholder. The petition does not state that appellant received the money sued for, knowing that it was staked on any betting declared gaming by the statutes of this state, and appellant’s objection to the introduction of any evidence should have been sustained. R. S. 1889, sec. 5216; State v. Leach, 50 Mo. 535 ; State v. Hein, ,50-Mo. 562 ; Becket v. Becket, 48 Mo. 396 ; State v. Davis, 14 R. I. 281; United States v. Clark, 37 Fed. Rep. 106…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
This is an action under the statute (R. S. 1889, sec. 5216) to recover from the defendant, as a stakeholder, money which was alleged to have been bet on the result of the election of the president of the United States. The amended petition reads:
*322“ The plaintiff, for an amended petition, herein states that heretofore, to-wit, on the third day of September, 1888, in the county of Jasper, state of Missouri, said plaintiff and one Isaac Perkins made and entered into a wager or a bet on the late presidential election, then pending, which said election was duly authorized by the constitution and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- McDermott v. ClaasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Williams v. WallSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Spurlock v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Eans' Adm'r v. Exchange BankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Donaldson v. County of ButlerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Wells v. AdamsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Cutshall v. McGowanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Vandolah v. McKeeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- White v. GillelandMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Laclede Power Co. v. Nash-Smith Tea & Coffee Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1900
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.