Okerson v. Crittenden

• Decision Date: 08 December 1883
• Citation: 62 Iowa 297,17 N.W. 528
• Parties: OKERSON v. CRITTENDEN.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

62 Iowa 297

17 N.W. 528

OKERSON

v.CRITTENDEN.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed December 8, 1883.

Appeal from Montgomery circuit court.

Plaintiff and another person made a wager. The defendant was stakeholder, and the plaintiff seeks to recover of him the amount the plaintiff deposited in his hands. Judgment was rendered for the defendant and the plaintiff appeals.Y. F. Fisher and Y. F. Fisher, Jr., for appellant.

C. E. Richards, for appellee.

SEEVERS, J.

1. The amount in controversy being less than $100, two questions have been certified upon which it is said to be desirable to have the opinion of the supreme court. The questions are as follows: “(1) Can a stakeholder of money, pending the determination of a bet between two parties, who is at the same time made umpire to decide which of the parties is the winner, and to pay the money to the winning party, exonerate himself by paying over the money without further securing the consent of the losing party to pay the same to the declared winner, upon the determination of the fact as to which party won? (2) Whether the declaration of the party declared to be the loser, made to the stakeholder that he is the winner of the bet, and a demand of the entire stake, is such a demand as to amount to a revocation of a bet, render a stakeholder liable in paying the money to the other party thereafter.” The defendant, as stakeholder, was to determine who had won the wager. He did so and paid the money to the winner. Can the plaintiff recover of the defendant, is the question to be determined under the first of the above questions.

It has been held that where the stakeholder has been notified not to pay over the wager, and he has not done so at the time he is notified, then a recovery may be had. Shannon v. Baumer, 10 Iowa, 210;Thrift v. Redman, 13 Iowa, 25;Adkins v. Flemming, 29 Iowa, 122. The case before us is materially different from the foregoing, for the appellant insists, and the first of the above questions implies, that before the stakeholder can exonerate himself from liability he must have obtained the consent of the losing party to pay the amount wagered to the winner. We understand the rule to be: “Although the wager be illegal, if the stakeholder has paid it over to the winner before notice or demand against him by the loser, he is exonerated.” 2 Pars. Cont. 627. When the wager was made both parties consented that the amount wagered should be paid to the winning party, and it was not...