Case Name: John A. Revier vs. Robert H. Hill
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1853-12
Citations: 1 Sneed 405
Docket Number: 
Parties: John A. Revier vs. Robert H. Hill.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 405–406

Head Matter:
John A. Revier vs. Robert H. Hill.
Notes won at gaming. In the hands of assignee with notice. A party losing notes at any unlawful game may recover the same, or their value, in the hands of the assignee of the winner, who has notice of the defect in the winner’s title, if the action be brought within ninety days from the time of such loss.
]?KOM MAURY.
This was an action of trover, brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for the conversion of certain promissory notes which one Holcombe had won from the plaintiff in a certain game of cards,' and which said Holcombe had assigned to the defendant in error, who had full notice of the manner in which Holcombe had obtained them. The suit was instituted within a day or two after the loss, in the circuit court .of Maury, where ’there was verdict and judgment for the defendant, Judge MaetiN presiding, from which the plaintiff appealed in error.
PayNE and GauNt, for the plaintiff.
M. S. EriersoN, for the defendant.

Opinion:
TotteN, J.,
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
Trover for tbe conversion of notes and securities for money.
These notes and securities were won from plaintiff by Thomas Holcombe in an unlawful game of cards. They were assigned by tbe plaintiff to Holcombe, and by him to tbe defendant, who bad full knowledge that they bad been won at said unlawful game ; and they were taken by him to secure an existing debt.
nis Honor, tbe circuit judge, instructed tbe jury that tbe action could not be maintained, as tbe defendant was hot tbe wwmer of tbe notes.
In this we think there is error. It is true, that tbe act of 1799, cb. 8, § 4, provides in terms for an action against tbe wmmr to recover money or goods lost at play. But if be deliver tbe money or goods to another, who has notice of tbe defect in' bis title, such person stands in tbe place of tbe winner, and can have no better title. This is true in other cases where an assignee or purchaser has notice of a defective' title. He bolds subject to tbe claim of tbe rightful owner. In a case like this tbe rule applies with peculiar force, as a different construction would, in a great measure, defeat tbe object and policy of tbe law.
Let tbe judgment be reversed and the cause be remanded.