Case Name: Henry K. Stevens, Appellant, v. Bernhard U. Sharp, Appellee
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1861-04
Citations: 26 Ill. 404
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry K. Stevens, Appellant, v. Bernhard U. Sharp, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 404–404

Head Matter:
Henry K. Stevens, Appellant, v. Bernhard U. Sharp, Appellee.
' APPEAL PROM WILL.
A bet on the resnlt of a presidential election is against the statute and the common law.
The following are admitted and agreed to bo the facts in the case:
In August, A. D. 1860, plaintiff and one Braden, both then and now citizens, residents and voters of the State of Illinois, made a wager of $1,000 each on the result of the then approaching presidential election. Plaintiff betting $1,000 that S. A. Douglas would be elected the next president of the United States, and Braden betting $1,000 that he (Douglas) would not.
Said plaintiff and Braden placed $1,000 each in the hands of defendant, as stake-holder for the parties aforesaid.
That some days before suit brought, and long before election, plaintiff demanded of the defendant the $1,000 which he, said plaintiff, had deposited with defendant as stake-holder.
Defendant refused to deliver up to said plaintiff said $1,000. Thereupon said plaintiff brought suit in an action of assumpsit for the recovery of said $1,000, the money so deposited by said plaintiff with the said defendant as stake-holder, as aforesaid. Whereupon said plaintiff recovered a judgment for the sum of $1,000.
From this judgment said defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The question presented for the decision of the Supreme Court is, was this bet void, as being in violation of the statute or the common law, or against public policy.
Parks & Elwood, for Appellant.
E. C. Fellows, for Appellee.

Opinion:
Caton, C. J.
This judgment was correct upon the agreed state of facts, and should undoubtedly be affirmed. The bet was clearly against the statute as well as the common law, and the plaintiff was entiled to recover the money back from the stake-holder. Indeed, we can hardly be persuaded that the case is not brought here solely to gain time.
The judgment is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.