¶1(dissenting). If fee placing of money in fee hands Of a stakeholder wife a 'Condition constitutes' a Wager, then I have mo criticism to make of the opinion. Suppose at fee time of .staking fee mloiney it had1 been agreed' feat either party might 'withdraw' bis stake at any time prior to ten days' before election. Gould it have been properly claimed! oto any date ¡prior to fee beginning of fee ¡ten-day period that there was a wager? Upon such a state of facts, could cither 'party halve bear convicted1 under Section 59, Pen. Code, or the stakeholder under section 27, Pen. Code, if the mioney had been withdrawn prior to fee beginning of fee tera-day period? ft- ©eeras1 cl'e'ar to me feat he could' not. 'If not in that case, rwhy in this? I think ’fee trial icouirt ruled correctly.
40 S.D. 453
Kelley v. Dirks
Decided May 18, 1918
South Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1918-05-18
Appeal fiiolm Circuit Court, Brule ^County1. Hlon. Frank B. Smith, Juidge. Action by Guy Kelley, as administrator oif the estate of Peter iB. Dlirks, 'deceased, against 'Suzanne C. Dirks, to recover mmey, ‘wagered upon am election 'by (her husband, and' turned aver ta her by stakeholder. From 'an order overruling demurrer toi the complaint, 'defendant: appeals.
Reversed · Decided 1918-05-18