Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Cal. 359

Johnson v. Fall

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1856

California Supreme Court · decided 1856-07-01

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District.</p> <p>This was an action brought on a promissory note given in the following wager, as alleged in the complaint: The defendant wagered the</p> <p>sum of §5,000 with William McNulty, that a railroad, then in contemplation between Benicia and Marysville, would be completed in two years from the date of the wager. Each party gave the other his promissory note for the sum, payable on the event. The railroad was not constructed. The note of defendant, on which this action is brought, is as follows:</p> <p>“ Two years after date, I promise to pay to the order of William McNulty, five thousand dollars, if the railroad is not finished from Marysville, Yuba county, to Benicia, when this note falls due.</p> <p>“ September 25,1852. John 0. Fall.”</p> <p>The complaint alleges that defendant had a large pecuniary interest in the completion of the road, and avers the assignment of the note for a valuable consideration to .the plaintiff. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that the wager was contrary to public policy, and affecting the interests of third parties, and that no consideration is expressed in the note or averred in the complaint.</p> <p>The Court below sustained the demurrer and gave judgment for defendant. -Plaintiff appealed.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1880

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Terry.

¶1Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

¶2At common law all wagers were recoverable, except such as were prohibited by law, were against public policy, or calculated to affect the interest, character or feelings of third parties. This principle is too well established to require either argument or authority. But it is contended by counsel that, inasmuch as the English Judges have uniformly looked with disfavor on this class of cases, and have frequently taken occasion to express their regret that a different rule had not been established, this Court should, as the question is for the first time presented in the State, without regard to precedent, declare all wagers illegal, on account of their manifest immoral tendency.

¶3Such a course would, we conceive, he a usurpation of functions properly belonging to another department of government. The common law having been adopted as the rule of decision in this State, it is our duty to enforce it, leaving all questions of its policy, as applied to a particular class of contracts, for the consideration of the Legislature.

¶4The questions which are made in the argument of counsel, as to the general utility of the work, which was the subject of the wager, its effect upon the interest of third parties, as well as the tendency of the wager to advance or retard such work, are, we conceive, questions of fact, which cannot properly be decided by a Court on demurrer.

¶5The judgment of the Court below is reversed, and the cause remanded.

/6/cal/359 · .json · Public domain