wager

(A) any wager with respect to a sports event or a contest placed with a person engaged in the business of accepting such wagers, (B) any wager placed in a wagering pool with respect to a sports event or a contest, if such pool is conducted for profit, and (C) any wager placed in a lottery conducted for profit.

Defined by the Supreme Court in United State v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22 (1953).

A wager is a contract by which two or more parties agree that a certain sum of money or other thing shall be paid or delivered to one of them on the happening of an uncertain event. 75 111. 560; 78 111. App. 241; 113 111. 239. A bet (q. v.)

A bet; a contract by which two parties or more agree that a certain sum of money, or other thing, shall be paid or delivered to one of them on the happening or not happening of an uncertain event. See Merchants’ S., L. Sc T. Co. v. Goodrich, 75 111. 560. A contract upon a contingency by which one may lose but cannot gain, or the other can gain but cannot lose, is a wager; Shumate v. Com., 15 Gratt. (Va.) 653; but there must be a risk by both parties; Quarles v. State, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 561. In Cassard v. Hinman, 1 Bosw. (N. Y.) 207, it was said: w wager, though a wager is not necessarily a bet.” At common law, wagers were not, per se, void; Johnston v. Russell, 37 Cal. 670; Monroe v. Smelley, 25 Tex. 586, 78 Am. Dec. 541; but if they were foolish, or tended to annoy others or outrage decency, they were discountenanced; Odger, C. L. 727. See [1907] 1 K. B. 758, for the history of the law of gaming contracts, in the judgment of Fletcher Moulton, L. J. By an English statute passed in 1845, wagers were prohibited, and similar statutes have been passed in many of the states. See Dos Passos, St. Br. 409; Margins. Where a contract is a mere device to avoid the statute, it is illegal, but the burden of proving its illegality is upon the defendant; Rigelow v. Benedict, 70 N. Y. 202, 26 Am. Rep. 573; and the intention of the parties is for the jury; 20 E. L. & E. 290; Kirkpatrick v. Bonsall, 72 Pa. 155. Where both parties to contracts for the sale and purchase of stocks intend that no stocks shall be delivered and that “differences” only shall be accounted for, the mere fact that the contracts provide that either party may require completion of the purchase and delivery or receipt (as the case may be) of stocks, does not prevent them from being contracts by way of gaming and wagering within Gaming Act 1845, and therefore void; [1896] A. C. 166; [1905] 1 Ch. 307; [1911] 1 K. B. 70. The true test of the validity of a contract for future delivery is whether it could be settled in money or whether the party selling could tender and compel acceptance of the particular commodity; Sampson v. Cotton Mills, 82 Fed. 833; and a contract for the sale of a commodity for future delivery is valid if the parties intend a future delivery, but Invalid if none is contemplated, but only a payment of the difference between the contract and the market price; Board of Trade v. Stock Co., 198 U. S. 236, 25 Sup. Ct. 637, 49 L. Ed. 1031; Edgerton & Son v. J. T. Edgerton & Bro., 153 N. C. 167, 69 S. E. 53; Raymond v. Parker, 84 Conn. 694, 81 Atl. 1030. Where the parties contemplate an actual delivery of the commodity, the contract is not a gambling contract, though it provides it may be settled by a money payment upon failure to deliver actual cotton; Daniel v. Reeves, 139 Ga. 646, 77 S. E. 1067; even where the principals may not be able to enforce the contract and the broker through whom the- transaction is made is ignorant of their intention, he cannot recover for money paid out in commissions; Ware v. Pearsons, 173 Fed. 878, 98

A wager is a contract by which two or more parties agree that a certain sum of money or other thing shall be paid or de-llvered to one of them on the happening of an uncortain event or upon the ascertainment of a fact which is in dispute between them. Trust Co. v. Goodrich, 75 III. 560; Jordan v. Kent, 44 How. Prae. (N. Y.) 207; Winward v. Lincoln, 23 R. I. 476, 51 Atl. 106, 64 In R. A. 160; Edson v. Pawlet, 22 Vt 293; Woodcock v. McQueen, 11 Ind. 15. A contract In which the parties stipulate that they snail gain or lose upon the happening of an uncertain event in which they have no interest, except that arising from the possibility of such gain or loss. Fareira v. Gab-ell, 89 Pa. 90; Kitchen v. Loudenback, 48 Ohio St 177, 26 N. E. 979, 29 Am. St Rep. 540. See, also, Bet.

— Wager of battel. The trial by wager of battel' was a species of trial introduced into England, among other Norman customs, by William the Conqueror, in which the person aceused fought with his accuser, under the apprehension that Heaven would give the victory to him who was in the right. 3 Bl. Comm. 337. It was abolished by St. 59 Geo. III. c. 46.

— Wager of law. In old practice. The giving of gage or sureties by a defendant in an action of debt that at a certain day assigned he would make his law; that is, would take an oath in open court that he did not owe the debt, and at the same time bring with him eleven neighbors, (called "compurgators,") who should avow upon their oaths that they believed in their consciences that he said the truth. Glanv. lib. 1, c. 9, 12; Bract, fol. 156b; Britt, c. 27 ; 2 Bl. Comm. 343 ; Cro. Eliz. 818.

— Wager policy. See Policy of Insurance.

— Wageriug contract. One in which the parties stipulate that they shall gain or lose, upon the happehing of an uncertain event, in which they have no interest except that arising from the possibility of such gain or loss. Fareira v. Gabell, 89 Pa. 89.

A contract by which two or more agree that a certain sum of money or other thing shall be paid or delivered to one of them, on the happening or not happening of an uncertain event; at common law not invalid unless upon a subject illegal, contrary to public policy, good morals, the peace of society, or the interests of third persons. Wager policy: a policy without any real interest in the assured to support it; a policy in which the assured has no interest In old English law. Wager of battel: the giving of a gage or pledge to try a cause by battel, or single combat. Wager of law: the giving of gage or sureties by a defendant in an action of debt, that at a certain day assigned he would make his law, — would take an oath in open court that he did not owe the debt, and bring eleven neigh- ^ bors, called compurgators, who would make oath that they believed that he said the truth.

1. A pledge or gage. Wager of battel or battle. Trial by combat. When the tenant in a writ of right pleaded the general issue and offered to prove it by his champion, and the tender was accepted, the tenant produced his champion, who, by throvring down his glove as a gage or pledge, waged or stipulated battel with the champion of the demandant. The latter, by taking up the gage, stipulated to accept the challenge. ' Eomig's Appeal, 84 Pa. 237 (1877), Woodward, J. 2 F. veiage, voyage; L. viaticum, provision for a journey: via, a way. The John Martin, 2 Abb. U. S. 181 (1870). [Friend v. Gloucester Ins. Co., 113 Mass. 333 (1873). 6 Be George Moncan, 8 Saw. 853 (1882). Taber v. United States, 1 Story, 7 (1839), Story, J. ' The Lart£, 1 Gall. 57 (1812); The Three Brothers, ib. 143 (1812).. This mode of trial, which originated in the military spirit of early days, was introduced into England by the Conqueror. It was also resorted to in appeals of felony and upon approvements.' See Approve, S; Battel. Wager of law. As in wager of battel the defendant gave a pledge, gage, or vadiwni, to try the cause by battel, so in wager of law he was to put in sureties or vadios that at such a day he would make his law, that is, take the benefit which the law allowed him. In the view that in cases an innocent man of credit might be over-borne by false witnesses, this species of trial, by the oath of the defendant himself, was established: for if he swore himself not chargeable, and appeared to be a person of repute, he went free and acquitted of the cause of action. He had, however, to produce eleven neighbors as " compurgators," his secta or suit, who upon oath avowed their belief that he spoke the truth. Abolished by 3 and 4 Will. IV (1833), c. 42.= If -wager of law ever existed in the United States, it is now abolished, 3 3. Placing something valuable, belonging in part to each of two individuals, in such a position, that it is to become the sole property of one, upon the result of an unsettled question.* A contract by which two or more parties agree that a certain sum of money or other thing shall be paid or delivered to one of them on the happening of an uncertain event.* The contract by which a " bet " is made; also, the thing or amount bet, but not the subject on which the bet is laid. A wager is the bet or stake laid upon the result of a game. " Bet " and " wager " are synonymous, and applied to the contract of betting and wagering, and to the thing or sum bet or wagered. They may be laid upon acts to be done, events to happen, or facts existing or to exist, — upon things legal and illegal. Offering a premium is not a bet or wager. A " premium " is an award or recompense for some act to be done. A '' wager " is a stake upon an uncertain event, At common law, all wagers were not illegal. Thus, it was not illegal to make a bet or wager on a horserace; and an action to recover a wager could be maintained.. To trot a horse in another State for a wager'or stakes is not prtma/acie illegal in that State. I 3 Bl. 337-41; 4 id. 346-48, 414. = 3 Bl. Com. 341; Coke, Litt. 295. Gh Udress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 674 (1823). Edson V. Pawlet, 22 Vt. 293 (1860), Hall, J. Exp. Young, 6 Biss. 67 (1874), Blodgett, J.; Merchants' Savings, &c. Co. v. Goodrich, 75 III. 560 (1874). [Smooth. State, 18Ind. 19 (1862), Perkins, J. ' Woodcock V. Mc Queen, 11 Ind. 16 (1858), Perkins, J. ' Alvord V. Smith, 63 Ind. 63 (1878), Biddle, J.; Delier J. Agricultural Society, 57 Iowa, 481 (1881). Harris v. White, 81 N. T. 539, 544 (1880), cases; Wagering contract. A wager, as defined above; that is, a contract in which the parties stipulate that' they shall gain or lose upon the happening of an uncertain event in which they have no interest except that arising from the possibility of such gain or loss.i Whether a particular contract is wagering is for a jury to decide. All such contracts are void. The generally accepted doctrine in this country is that a contract for the sale of goods [merchandise, commodities, stocks, etc.] to be delivered at a future day is valid, even though the seller has not the goods, nor any other means of getting them than by going into the market and buying them; butsucha contract is only valid when the parties really intend and agree that the goods are to be delivered by the seller and the price is to be paid by the buyer; and if, under guise of such a contract, the real intent be merely to speculate upon the rise or fall of prices, and the goods are not to be delivered, but one party is to pay the other the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods at the date fixed for executing the contract, then the whole transaction constitutes a mere wager, and is null and void. This is now the law in England also,. by force of the statute of 8 and 9 Vict, (1845), c. 109, s. 18, altering the 6ommon law.2 Dealing in futures without intent to pay for or to receive or deliver the property is declared to be a wagering contract by recent enactments in Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, and other States; and "bucket shops " and other places maintained for enabling.peisons to make such contracts are declared to be nuisances. See further Eutdbes; Option, Contract; Speocla-

1. An engagement to pay money, transfer property, perform services, &c., dependent on some event which is uncertain or unknown to the parties, and in which they have no interest. Wager is said to be synonymous with bet. See Bet. If there is a difference, it probably is that bet is more appropriate where the engagement of one party ouly is the idea prominently presented; and wager more appiopriate where the transaction on both sides, comprising mutual bets, is in view. But the words are used interchangeably. Wagers are considered not to have been intrinsically unlawful at common law, but might be enforced, unless the subject or attendant circumstances furnished a ground of illegality. But they payment. Cowel; Tomlins. And see Vouch. A voucher is any instrument which attests, warrants, maintains, bears witness. State B. Hiclcman, 8 N. J. L. 299.