Case ID: scl_10/html/0106-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cheves, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Gordon Livingston ads. Daniel Wootan
    Money deposited on an illegal wager, may be recovered from a stakeholder, who lias paid it over, after notice not to do it. Miter, if fairly paid over, 
    
    This was an action to recover $20, which the plaintiff placed in the hands of the defendant, as a stakeholder, to be paid to the winner of a wager, between the plaintiff and Samuel Hasket, depending on the event of a horse race.
    The wager was the same as that on which the action of Wootan v. HusJcet,
      
       was brought. And although the plaintiff’s stake was only $20, yet the bet was for more than 10Z.
    At the trial, the facts of the case were much controverted. It was contended by defendant, that Hasket had fairly won the wager, and that he had paid over the stake in question, to him, as the winner ; and testimony was given to support these allegations.
    By the plaintiff it was alleged, and he gave evidence to prove that he was the winner, and that the defendant was notified of the fact, and forbidden to pay over the stake to Hasket.
    The case was submitted to a jury, under the Act of Assembly, who found for the plaintiff.
    The case was tried before Mr. Justice Bay, in the Spring Term of 1815.
    This was a motion for a new trial, on the ground, that a wager on a horse race was illegal; and that the stake cannot be recovered after it has been paid or delivered to the winner, notwithstanding notice to the stakeholder not to pay it over.
    
      
       Next ease.
    
    
      
      
        Cotton v. Thurland, 5 T. Rep. 405; Smith v. Bickmore, 4 Taunt. Rep. 474; Eltham v. Kingsman, 1 Barnewall & Alderson’s Rep. 683. R.
      6 Rich. 45.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Cheves, J.

As the presiding judge has made no report of the evidence, and the counsel in the case have not agreed on the facts, the actors in this motion, can only have *the advantage of the general question of law, viz.: Can money, deposited by the winner, in the hands of a stakeholder, be recovered frornthe stakeholder, who has had notice not to pay it over 1

The negative of this question must be well sustained by authority, or it must be abandoned. On principle, it is utterly indefensible. If the wager were to be considered as legal, after the verdict has established the plaintiff to be the winner, what pretence could the defendant have for retaining the money ? If, as we have determined, it was illegal, it must either give the defendant the right to retain money, to which he has not the shadow of a claim, or to pay it over to a party to the guilty transaction, to whom it is denied on principles of honor, as well as principles of law. Neither could be tolerated, and therefore the plaintiff ought, on principles, to recover. The authorities concur. Lacaussade v. White, (7 T. Rep. 531. S. C. 2 Esp. Ca. 629.) It is otherwise, where the money has been fairly paid over. But there can be no distinction between a ease, where the money remains in the hands of a stakeholder, and one, where, as in this case, he has paid it over, after notice not to do so.

In cases of illegal transactions, money may always be stopped, while in transitu to the person who is entitled to receive it as the result of his illegal success ; Edgar v. Fowler, (3 East, 222,) a fortiori, it may be stopped, where the caprice of fortune has concurred with the law. The maxim melior est conditio possidentis, does not apply to the case. The motion for a new trial is unanimously refused. ,

All the judges concurred.