Ruckman v. BryanRuckman v. Bryan
Thе defendant, as the evidence shows, was interested to the extent of six hundred dollаrs in the bet of three thousand made by the plaintiff, it having been previously agreed between them that the plaintiff should make the advance of the six hundred dollars for thе purpose of this bet. Upon this arrangement the advance was made, the money being placed by the plaintiff in the hands of the stakeholder; and the question рresented is, can the plaintiff recover for money so lent and advanced by him?
Perhaps the circumstance that the money was delivered by the lender to the stakeholder, and not to the borrower, might distinguish this case, in principle, from a direсt loan and advance of money to the borrower personally, to enable him to make the bet. But if such a distinction could be made, I do not regard it as matеrial to proceed upon it. I regard the case in hand, in effect, as a direct loan and advance to the defendant for the express purpose of making the bet; and if money so loaned is recoverable, this report should be set aside, and one
The bet w.as clearly, illegal. “All wagers, bets.or stakes, made to.depend upon, any race, or upon any gaming by lot oi chance, or- uрon any lot, chance, casualty, or= unknown or- contingent , event. whatever, shall be unlawful. All .contracts for or on. account; of - any-, money., or property, or. thing in action,so wagered; bet or staked; shall be void.” (1 R. S. 662 § 8) It makes no.differencе that.the race, was to .go .off on an authorized course, as; that in. Queens сounty was ; the bet was, notwith standing; illegal. (Gibbons v. Gouverneur, 1 Denio, 170.)
The English, statute of- 9 Anne, c. 14, ,§ 1 which, has been substantially re-enacted here, (1 R. S. 663, §,16,) declares.-th.at all securities for the repayment of money knowingly lent for gаming or betting on games, shall, b.e void. (Chit. on Cont. 712.) It has been held that as this statute only avoids the security given for money so lent, the borrower-is .still, liable, on thе contract to loan and borrow, and which may, therefore, be enforced by the lender in.аn action-of assumpsit,for money lent and advanced, (Barjeau v. Walmsley, 2 Stra. 1249; Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr, 1077; Aleinbrook. v. Hall, 2 Wils, 309; Wettenhall v. Wood, 1; Esp, 18.) In, a- late case in-this сourt the, present;chief justice..remarked, that,our stalute “-of betting and'garning”' went furthеr-than, the.English, and. that since its passage he did: " not see howmoney knowingly lent for the purpose of betting, of gaming” could " be recovered from the borrower.” (Peck v. Briggs, decided May term, 1846.)
However, this .may be upon the words .of; the statute, it seems now.to.be. entirely, settled,in the English сourts that the cases I have referred to, so-far as-.they.sanction the doсtrine that money knowingly loaned- for ¡an- illegal purpose may-.-be. recovеred by the lender, cannobhe sustained/ They were expressly repudiated.in the сase'of McKinnell v. Robinson, which was decided in the court, of exchequer, in 1838. (3 M. & W. 434.) That was an actiоn of assumpsit brought by the lender against the
It was unlawful in this case to make the bet, and not less so to furnish the money for that purpose. No cause of actiоn can arise in favor of a party to an illegal transaction, nor will the law lеnd its aid to enforce a contract which is in conflict with the terms or the policy of a statute. The referee decided correctly on this point, and the motion to set aside the report must be denied.
Motion denied.
Notes
Ante, p. 107.