Court Opinion

ID: 9864740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:09:12.277553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:28.337009
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Burke
dissenting.
This, as I read the record, is the situation.here: Simpson entered into what he understood was a gambling venture; which, even as such, he understood was “fixed.” There were alleged profits. To secure his share of these he put up good money with his confederates. They absconded with it. Two of them were later arrested and held on a criminal charge. The third, suspecting Simpson would be a damaging witness against them, sought him out and entered into an agreement with him that if he would not testify she would return $500 of his purloined cash. To guarantee performance the money was put up in escrow with the bank which had no information concerning the consideration. Through an honest error the bank returned it to the conspirator. Simpson now seeks, through his garnishment, to compel the bank to pay him.
To grant Simpson relief against the bank we must put the stamp of our approval on his crooked gambling deal as well as his agreement not to testify whereby alone he secured the return of $500 of his lost funds to a place where it would be within the reach of process. To do this we must take the money from the bank, which would never have touched it had the facts been revealed, and which lost it through an honest mistake.
*61Simpson should not have gambled. That was contrary to law and public policy. Even so he should not have played what he must have believed was a “fixed” game. That was contrary to law, public policy and good morals. But for these derelictions he would not be here now. He should not have obtained the deposit of a part of his lost money by a contract to violate a statute. That was contrary to law and public policy. Had he not done this he would not be here now. He should have advised the bank that it was being made a stakeholder in a contract to violate the law under an escrow agreement which the bank was not free to execute without becoming a party to the violation. Had he done so the bank would never have accepted the escrow and he would now have no claim against it. The bank should, of course, have retained the money and answered the garnishment that the amount was in its hands.
It is well settled that where one of two innocent persons must suffer by the act of the third he who put it in the power of the swindler to perpetrate the fraud must stand the loss. If such be the rule where both are innocent it can scarely fail of applicability to one who, as here, is twice guilty.
It is said the Couch and Sockwell cases are not in point because in each the contract was immoral while here it is one “which the law recognizes.” I think the only contracts here involved are: (1) Simpson’s contract for a cut in a crooked gambling venture; (2) Simpson’s contract not to testify; (3) the bank’s contract to act as stakeholder in the latter. Simpson’s part in each of these was immoral. If the law “recognizes” such contracts it is in bad company and its hands are dirty. I think the Stewart case, cited in the court’s opinion, supports it save for the element here injected by the agreement not to testify. That precedent, however, is not binding in this court and is, I think, contrary to the' Couch and Sockwell decisions which are. Moreover, the opinion in the Stewart case was written by Judge Hook *62with whom Judge Adams concurred, while the third member of the court, the very able Judge Sanborn, in a powerful dissent, demolished it.
I think the judgment should be reversed. Mr. Justice Bakke concurs herein.