Case Name: Thomas G. Leverett, plaintiff in error, vs. William Stegall, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1857-06
Citations: 23 Ga. 257
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas G. Leverett, plaintiff in error, vs. William Stegall, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 257–260

Head Matter:
Thomas G. Leverett, plaintiff in error, vs. William Stegall, defendant in error.
(1.) If A deposit as a stake, the promissory note of a third person, with B., and B. deliver the same to the winner, after being notified to withhold it, taking from the winner a bond of indemnity, A. is entitled to recover the note of the winner in an action of trover.
(2) A witness, whose interest is uncertain, and who is protected against a recovery, by the statute of limitations, in a competent witness.
Trover, in Lee Superior Court. Decision by Judge Allen, March Term, 1857.
This was an action of trover by Thomas G. Leverett, against William Stegall, for the recovery of a promissory note.
It appeared that the plaintiff' and defendant made a bet on the result of the gubernatorial election,in 1851; notes were bet and placed in the hands of William L. Davis, as stakeholder; the notes were for about eight hundred dollars on each side; Stegall bet on Cobb, and Leverett on McDonald; Leverett lost, and the stakeholder paid the stakes over to Stegall, hut was notified by Leverett not to do so. This notice was given before the note was turned over, and the loser, Leverett, brings this action to recover of Stegall, the note.
Davis, the stakeholder, was offered as a witness by plaintiff, to prové the above facts, defendant objected to his testimony on the ground of his interest, the Court sustained the objection, and plaintiff excepted.
Defendant then moved for a non suit, which was granted and plaintiff excepted.
P. J. Strozier, for plaintiff in error.
Vason & Davis and Warren & Warren, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court. —
Lumpkin J.,
delivering the opinion.
We do not propose to overrule or in anywise modify the decision of this Court in Alford vs. Burke, 21, Ga. Rep. 46, on the contrary, we maintain that upon the principles of that case, the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this. Before the wager was paid over by the stakeholder, he was notified to withhold it, and notwithstanding this notice, and the full knowledge of it on the part of Stegall, the note of Turner was turned over to the defendant, he giving a bond of indemnity to Davis. It is admitted that Davis made himself liable; the facts of the case substitute Stegall in his stead to all intents and purposes, Stegall came by the note tortiously. He might as well, for the purposes of this action and the . law of the case, have stolen the note from the stakeholder, or ( from Leverett himself, after it had been returned to him by Davis.
The plaintiff need not, and does not invoke in aid of his case the wager, and this is the test of his right to recover.
If there be any class of gambling contracts, which should be frowned upon more than another, it is bets on elections, they strike at the foundation of popular institutions, corrupt the ballot-box, or what is tantamount to it, interfere with the freedom and purity of elections, and there is no security for the permanence of our government.
The interest of the witness Davis, was too uncertain to reject his testimony; if liable at all, it was in tort. He might never be sued, and his liability, if it ever existed, was barred by the statute of limitations.
Judgment reversed.