State journal & flag. [volume] (Tuscaloosa, Ala.) 1843-1846, 1846-11-13
DECISIONS OF JUNE TERM, 1916,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Reported for the Journal and Flag.
JAMES FOREMAN, VS.. GEORGE N.
HARD WICK.
Court of Chancery of 81. Clair county.

/
Court Of Chancery of 81. Clair county.
PoPE. TOR the plaintiff in error.
S. F. RICE and F. w. Bowdon, for the
defendant in error.
Hardwck sold his land to Foreman for
400 dollars, and took his note payable in a
few days tor payment, and deed was exc
cuted by Hardwck TO Fo remain, who went
into possession of the land. A bet was af.
forwards made by the parties, on the Presi
Dental election Of 1910, ms follows: If Mr..
Van Buren, was elected President. the note
was to be paid by Foreman, and the land
reconveeyd TO Hardwick; but il General
Harrison was elected, the note was TO be
given up TO Foreman. to be considered paid,
and Foreman 10 retain the land. The note
made by Foreman, and the deed executed
by Hardwick, were put in the hands of A.
M. Byers 10 bo delivered 10 the winner as
soon as the result was known. When it
was ascertained that General Harrison was
elected. Byers gave up the deed and note
TO Foreman the winner OF the wager.
Hardwick filed his bill in Chancery
against Foreman PRAYING, as was ruled. for
for the enforcement of an equitable lien, tor
tho purchase money, as vendor Of the
land, &c.
COLLIER, CT
l. Where there is no special prayer, adap-
ted, to the case made by the bill, and the
bill states, as the general ground upon
which complainant asks relief, that he
had sold his land to defendant tor 400 dol
lars, taken his note for this sum, and that
the latter had Won il from hun but there
is m agreement afterwards entered into
by the parties, that the bill shall be suppo.
sed to contain, the appropriate prayers for
discovery and relief tho bill will be
considered as on application for the en-
forcement Of an equitable lien, as no re-
lief, tit there be any other,) is SO well
adapted TO the case, as the subsection Of
the land, to the payment of the purchase
money.
2. Upon common law principles, the court
inclines TO think, a debt is not discharged
by winning as wager, writing, by
which it is evidenced but semble, that
the effect Of such a transaction upon the
rights of a creditor, need not be consid.
cred, in this State, without reference to
legislation on the subject; and
3. The terms of the act OF 1907 are excee-
dinghy comprehensive. 1t declares void
tall promises, agreements, notes, bills
bonds, or other contracts" &c. "fol
money or osher valuable thing whatsoev-
err" founded in "gaming, betting, or wa.
gering."
4. Giving up The note does not extinguisf
the debt, and if the agreement to deliver
the note to defendant; Gf the complain
ant should have miscacuated the even
upon which the parties laid their wagers,
was void, can have no effect upon the
compliments rights it is therefore com
peent for him 10 assert his right; to re-
cover the purchase money, by praying
that his equitable lien may be enforced
I 5. A complaint who has received the ben
eft ofmoney advanced by the defendant
and who is an actor in court, should be
70 ced to reimburse it the master should
therefore, have reported in favor of The
allowance t. the defendant, OF a credit
for the amount at which he bid off the
land, at sale, under the order Of court
consequent upon constable's levy.
Reversed and decree rendered in accor
dance.