Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Ohio Ch. 356

Pratt v. McIntosh

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1833

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1833-06-15

Replevin for a bay mare. Plea, property in the defendant, and issue. It appeared in evidence, that the mare in question had been placed in the hands of a stakeholder, with another horse, and a note for twenty dollars, as a bet upon a horse race, to be delivered to the winner, upon the decision of judges, chosen by the parties. The race was run, judges chosen, who adjudged the defendant to have Won, and the mare was delivered accordingly.

Decided 1833-06-15

The Court,

¶1to the jury. The act of 1824, makes void all contracts, when the whole, or any part of the consideration, was for money, or other valuable thing, won at a horse race; 22 O. L. 192. The same act authorized persons losing money, or other valuable thing, by playing at any game, or by. betting on the hand or side of those that do play, to recover the loss back by action of debt. The act of 1831, (29 O. L. 442) extends this last provision to embrace money or property lost by playing or betting at any game, or by means of any bet or wager.

¶2Under the act'of Í824, the right to recover back by suit property lost on a horse race, was not provided for; it only declared void the contract. If this contract was open, and either party sued upon it, it would not be enforced; but if the parties have executed it, they are particeps criminis, and the court will not aid either of them. If, therefore, you are of opinion the mare was delivéred to the defendant by virtue of the plaintiff’s direction, the defendant is entitled to your verdict; but, if the contract was rescinded, and the plaintiff countermanded and gave the defendant notice, the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict.

¶3Verdict for defendant $>99 20.

¶4The plaintiff moved for a new trial, because' the verdict is against evidence, and cited 12 John. R. 1. Motion overruled.

/1/ohioch/356 · .json · Public domain