Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 Johns. 406

Campbell v. Richardson

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1813

New York Supreme Court · decided 1813-10-15

IN ERR.OR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Richard-• son> Taft, M‘Dowell and Todd sued Campbell, before the justice, and declared that whereas the defendant, on the fill of Jonuary, 1813, at, &c. set up a mark, the size of a horse, at the distance of 60 rods, for the plaintiffs to shoot at, at 25 cents f°r each shot, and which if hit by them the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of 20 dollars; that the plaintiffs did shoot at the mark so set up by the…

Cited in Bouvier (1839)’s definition of “Wagers”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1813-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1932

5 state decisions

201813182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Whether another person, n~t joined in this suit, was a partner with the plaintiWs in the transaction, was a question of fact proper to be decided by- a jury; and though their verdict was against the weight of evidence, we do not interfere on that ground.

¶2If a wager of any kind is to be recognised as valid in law, the one made in this case, is, perhaps, as harmless, and liable to as little objection, as any that could be made. It has long been matter of regret with courts of justice, that wagers should have been so far countenanced as to permit actions to be sustained for their recovery. The expression of this regret, however, is accompanied with the admission that the common law does recognise some wagers as valid; and we do not discover any solid reason for saying the present belongs to the class of excepted cases. Strong and cogent reasons might be urged to the proper tribunal, for aa alteration of the law on this subject; but as the law now stands, we do not feel ourselves authorized to say that the plaintiffs have no right to recover in the present ease. The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.

¶3Judgment affirmed. (a)

¶4 See Acts, sess. 24. c. 46. s. 1. and 2. Sess. 25. c. 44. Cowp. 33. 729. 1 Term Rep. 56. 2 Term Rep. 615. 710. 3 Term Rep 697. 4 Bl. Com. 171. 6 Term Rep. 499. 10 East, 22. 2 Bos. & Pull. 51. 2 H. Bl. 43. 4 Term Rep. 1. 4 Johns. Rep. 426. 7 Johns. Rep. 440. 8 Johns. Rep. 454.

/10/johns/406 · .json · Public domain