Case Name: Cushing Thomas v. Henry Cronise
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1847-12
Citations: 16 Ohio 54
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cushing Thomas v. Henry Cronise.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 16
Pages: 46–48

Head Matter:
Cushing Thomas v. Henry Cronise.
A. court of chancery will not set aside a deed executed upon the consideration of a hot upon the rosult of an election, but will leave the parties as it finds them.
This is a bill in chancery, roserved in the county of Seneca.
The bill charges in substance, that one John Strong and Henry Cronise, the respondent, made a bet upon the result of the election for governor in 1842, of lot No. 96, in Tiffin, in Seneca county. That Strong executed a deed of *said lot, with general covenant of warranty to the respondent, and delivered the game-to one Clark, as stake-holder. That the only consideration for the execution of the deed was said wager upon the result of the election. That Clark, contrary to the express request of Strong, after the election, delivered the deed to Cronise. That complainant is ignorant of the terms of the wager, and calls upon Cronise for full answer. That possession is in Strong and himself. That Strong, who made said bet, sold the lot in question for $79 to John Strong, Sen., who sold and deeded it to complainant for $70, on September 24, 1845. That he was ignorant of the deed of Cronise at the time of his purchase. . That Cronise has given out in speeches, that he claims said lot under said deed. The bill prays that the deed to Cronise may be declared fraudulent and void, and that complainant may have the lot decreed to him as the lawful owner, and calls upon respondent to make full answer on oath.
Cronise, in his answer, admits the wager, and states that the bet was upon the result of the election of governor of the State of Ohio, in the year 1842. The answer further states, that Strong executed the deed above named to Cronise, and that Cronise executed a deed for a lot to Strong. These deeds were deposited with Sylvester B. Clark, as stakeholder. If Corwin should be elected governor, the two deeds were to be delivered to Strong; and if Shannon, the two deeds were to be delivered to Cronise. Shannon was elected, and the deeds were delivered to Cronise, at the request of Strong. That Strong expressed himself satisfied with the transaction after the deed was delivered. That Clark complained against Cronise for making the bet, before the mayor of the town of Tiffin, and that he was fined in the sum of $100. That he delivered the deed for the lot in question to the recorder for record, on July 1, 1843. That he has been in possession of said lot ever since. That no consideration ever passed from Strong the elder to Strong the junior for the lot. Cronise also sets up a purchase *at a tax sale, since the deed convoying the lot to him, and asserts complete title in himself, and prays to be dismissed.
William E. Noble, for complainant.
Cowdrey & Wilson, for defendant.

Opinion:
Read, J.
It is a universal principle, both in law and equity, that where an agreement is founded upon a consideration illegal, immoral, or against public policy, a court will leave the parties where it finds them. If executed, the court will not rescind it; if ex-ecutory, the court will not aid in its execution. Raguet v. Cowles, 14 Ohio, 55. Betting upon elections was always immoral, and against public policy; but was not made criminal until the act of 1839, and is not embraced in the general act to prevent gaming, which declares all agreements made upon gambling considerations void, and authorizes the losing party to recover back money or property lost upon a bet or wager. There is no statute which gives relief in a case of this sort, either in a court of law or equity. It rests upon the general principles wo have asserted. The parties being in pari delicto, the court will not interfere.
It is claimed that this is a bill to quiet title under the statute. In such case, the complainant must have both the legal title and possession. In this case he has neither.
Bill dismissed, with costs.