Leverett v. Stegall
| Decision Date | 30 June 1857 |
| Citation | 23 Ga. 257 |
| Parties | Thomas G. Leverett, plaintiff in error. vs. William Stegall, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Trover, in Lee Superior Court. Decision by Judge Allen, March Term, 1857.
This was an action of trover by Thomas G. Leverett, against William Stegall, for the recovery of a promissory note.
It appeared that the plaintiff and defendant made a bet on the result of the gubernatorial election, in 1851; notes were bet and placed in the hands of William L. Davis, as stakeholder; the notes were for about eight hundred dollars on each side; Stegall bet on Cobb, and Leverett on McDonald; Leverett lost, and the stakeholder paid the stakes over to Stegall, but was notified by Leverett not to do so. This notice was given before the note was turned over, and the loser, Leverett, brings this action to recover of Stegall, the note.
Davis, the stakeholder, was offered as a witness by plaintiff, to prove the above facts, defendant objected to his testimony on the ground of his interest, the Court sustained the objection, and plaintiff excepted.
Defendant then moved for a nonsuit, which was granted, and plaintiff excepted.
P. J. Strozier, for plaintiff in error.
Vason & Davis and Warren & Warren, contra.
By the Court. —Lumpkin, J., delivering the opinion.
We do not propose to overrule or in anywise modifythe decision of this Court in Alford vs. Burke, 21 Ga. Rep. 46, on the contrary, we maintain that upon the principles of that case, the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this. Before the wager was paid over by the stakeholder, he was notified to withhold it, and notwithstanding this notice, and the full knowledge of it on the part of Stegall, the note of Turner was turned over to the defendant, he giving a bond of indemnity to Davis. It is admitted that Davis made himself liable; the facts of the case substitute Stegall in his stead to all intents and purposes, Stegall came by the note tortiously. He might as well, for the purposes of this action and the law of the case, have stolen the note from the stakeholder, or from Leverett himself, after it had been returned to him by Davis.
The plaintiff need not, and does not invoke in aid of his case the wager, and this is the test of his right to recover.
If there be any class of gambling contracts, which should be frowned upon more than another, it is bets on election, they strike at the foundation of popular institutions, corrupt the ballot-box, or what is tantamount to it, interfere with the freedom and purity of elections, and there is no security for the permanence of our government.
The interest of the witness Davis, was too uncertain to reject his testimony; if liable at all, it was in tort. He might never be sued, and his liability, if it ever existed, was barred by the statute of limitations.
Judgment reversed.
The stakeholder is the agent of both bettors; and he so remains as long as he retains the stakes. He is but their mere agent, for betting being illegal, neither bettor acquires any right by the bet. Either bettor therefore, may, at any time before his stake has been delivered to the other bettor, revoke the stakeholder's authority to deliver the stake to theother bettor. And any act done by the agent after the revocation of his authority, is void as against the principal, and of course, can confer no rights of any sort, as against the principal.
These things being so, the delivery of the stakes, in this case, by the stakeholder to one of the bettors, could confer no right on him to the stake of the other bettor, for the latter had before such delivery, revoked the stakeholder's authority to make such delivery.
And that the revoking bettor in such a case, is entitled to the aid of a Court to recover back his stake, or its value from the other bettor, is decided, I think, by the case of Alford vs. Burke, which was the case of a bet on a dog fight, and which was determined at Savannah in January Term, 1857. I do not think it necessary to do more than refer to that case,
Notes were staked in this case. The legal title to a note, is presumptively in the party to whom it is made payable, if he have the possession, and it be not endorsed by him. To divest that title, there must be proof of some sort.
This is an action of trover for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lasseter v. O'neill
...section 4256 of the Civil Code of 1910, to recover the deposits so made? Alford v. Burke, 21 Ga. 46 (4), 68 Am. Dec. 449; Leverett v. Stegall, 23 Ga. 257, 259; Ingram v. Mitchell, 30 Ga. 547 (3); Smith v. Ray, 89 Ga. 838 (1), 16 S. E. 90; Cobb's Digest, 727, 72S. (3) If both of the above qu......
-
Mclennan v. Whiddon
...and, if the stakeholder disregards the notice, and pays the money, he is liable to the party giving the notice. In the case of Leverett v. Stegall, 23 Ga. 257, before the wager was paid the stakeholder was notified to withhold it, but notwithstanding this notice, and the full knowledge that......
-
Hawes v. Glover
...but did intend to make all persons competent as witnesses except those who fell within the exceptions to the act." And in the case in 23 Ga. 257 (Leverett v. Stegall), cited him, it was held: "A witness, whose interest is uncertain, and who is protected against recovery by the statute of li......
-
McLennan v. Whiddon
...in exact accordance with the decision of this court in Alford v. Burke, 21 Ga. 46, and by a majority of the court in the case of Leverett v. Stegall, 23 Ga. 259; and in the latter case Judge McDonald dissented from the decision rendered, the dissent did not take issue with any of the views ......