Emerson v. Townsend

• Decision Date: 05 December 1890
• Citation: 20 A. 984,73 Md. 224
• Parties: EMERSON ET AL. v. TOWNSEND.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

20 A. 984

73 Md. 224

EMERSON ET AL. v. TOWNSEND.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 5, 1890

Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city.

Suit by Urie Townsend against William R. Emerson and Howard Bryant to enjoin the collection of a judgment against him. Decree for complainant, and defendant, Townsend, appeals.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and MILLER, IRVING, FOWLER, MCSHERRY, and BRISCOE, JJ.

J W. Bryant and Henry Bryant, for appellant.

Wm. S. Bryan, Jr., and Robert Crane, for appellee.

BRISCOE J.

It appears from the record in this case that on the 10th day of March, 1887, the appellee, Urie Townsend, executed and delivered to the appellant William R. Emerson a promissory note, payable to the said Emerson eight months from its date for the sum of $395, bearing interest from its date. The note, according to the evidence, was given in settlement of accounts between the parties. Shortly after the maturity of the note, a suit was instituted thereon in the superior court of Baltimore city by one Howard Bryant, indorsee, and after trial before a jury, a judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for the sum of $403.48, with interest and costs. At the trial, an agreement was filed that any defense growing out of the plaintiff, (Bryant,) being a bona fide holder for value, without notice, should be waived. The suit was afterwards entered for the use of Emerson, the original payee of the note. On the 14th of December, 1888, a bill of complaint was filed by the defendant, Townsend, against Emerson and Bryant, for the purpose of obtaining an injunction to prevent the plaintiff from proceeding to collect the judgment, and for the further purpose of vacating the said judgment. The bill alleged that the judgment was void, because a part of the consideration of the note upon which it has been rendered was for a gambling debt, being for money loaned at poker, a game of cards, and prayed that execution of the judgment should be perpetually enjoined. The appellant in his answer denied the allegations of the bill and averred that no part of the account, or the note, was for a gambling debt. Proof was then had, and at the hearing a decree was passed directing the injunction to issue, perpetually enjoining and prohibiting any execution of said judgment. It was further ordered by the court that the decree be without prejudice to the right of Emerson and Bryant to bring suit for the recovery of any claim that they might have against the defendant, Townsend. From this decree the present appeal has been taken.

It is well settled by the provisions of the statute of 9 Anne, c 14, (see Alex. Br. St. 6, 9,) that "all notes, bills, bonds, judgments, mortgages, or other securities or conveyances whatsoever, given, granted, drawn, or entered into or executed by any person or persons whatsoever, where the whole or any part of the consideration of such conveyances or securities shall be for any money or other valuable thing whatsoever, won by gaming or playing at cards, dice, tables, tennis, bowls, or other game or games whatsoever, or by betting on the sides or hands of such as do game at any of the games aforesaid, or for the reimbursing or repaying any money knowingly lent, or advanced for such gaming or betting, as aforesaid, or lent or advanced at the time and place of such play, to any person or persons so gaming or betting as aforesaid, or that shall, during such play, so play or...