Williams v. Wall

• Decision Date: 31 May 1875
• Citation: 60 Mo. 318
• Parties: LOUDEN WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. JAMES K. WALL, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

60 Mo. 318

LOUDEN WILLIAMS, Appellant,

v.JAMES K. WALL, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May Term, 1875.

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.

B. R. Vineyard, for Appellant.

I. Defendant, Wall, even though an innocent party, was liable for the conversion of the draft. (Koch vs. Branch, 44 Mo., 542; Chapin vs. Drake, 75 Ill., 295; Edw. Bills, § 337; Sto. Prom. Notes, § 192.) Much more was this the case where, as was here the fact, he had knowledge. (Lyle vs. Lindsey, 5 B. Monr., 123; Pope's Adm'r vs. McKinney, 3 B. Monr., 93.)

Bennett Pike, for Respondent.

I. The first two sections of the statute touching gaming, confine the action to that by the loser, his heirs, etc., against the winner; and the third and fourth sections do not include drafts executed by outside parties and simply held by those to the wager. This is not a suit to collect money on a note or other security, the consideration of which is money won at gaming, but simply to recover the value of a draft as money lost at gaming.

The statute will not authorize an action of this sort against one who is merely a collector for the winner.

SHERWOOD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Our attention has been specially called to the plaintiff's second count.

It charges in substance that on the 3rd of October, 1873, and within three months of the commencement of his action, the plaintiff was the owner of a certain draft for $1,100, drawn by the Citizens' Bank of Greensbury, Indiana, on the 3rd National Bank of N. Y. City; that one Bailey, a gambler, induced plaintiff to endorse and put up as a stake on a game of chance called “three card monte,” the said draft, and thereupon won the same from him; that Bailey having thus become the possessor of the draft, acquainted the defendant with all the above related circumstances, in reference to the draft, and induced him, in consideration of an agreement that defendant might retain $100 of the amount of the draft when collected, to take steps for its collection; that, in pursuance of this fraudulent design against plaintiff, Bailey indorsed and delivered the draft to defendant, who in turn indorsed and delivered it to a banker, ignorant of the circumstances, who collected the same from the bank on which it was drawn, also, ignorant of any wrong having been done, paid the proceeds to defendant, who, retaining therefrom the sum agreed upon, paid the residue to Bailey; that by reason of the premises and the acts of the defendant, the draft, without consideration, was lost to the defendant, and the sum of $1,100, the proceeds arising therefrom, received by defendant to plaintiff's use; for which he asked judgment. These allegations were held not good on demurrer.

I. The first section of the act in relation to gaming (Wagn. Stat., 661), allows a recovery of money or property won thereby, by any person; and is not at all restrictive in its operation as to the person or persons, from whom such recovery may be had.

The heirs, legal representatives and creditors of the losing party are, however, limited by the terms of the second section to a recovery against the winner alone.

The third section declares void all judgments by confession, conveyances, bonds, bills, notes and securities, when the consideration is money or property won at any game or gambling device. Provision is also made by that section to vacate such judgments, and to cancel such notes, etc., by proper procedure on the part of the person directly interested, his heirs, legal representatives, creditors, etc.

The fourth section prevents the assignment of any bond, bill, judgment, etc., from affecting the defense of the person executing the same.

And the ninth section limits the period wherein action must be brought for the recovery of money or property to three months.

II. The central idea of the act before us, which is evidently in aid of the statute defining and punishing gambling as a criminal offense, is to discourage and suppress gaming by the most effective of all methods, that of preventing the gambler from retaining the spoils of his nefarious vocation, and from successfully transferring them to colleagues as unscrupulous as himself.

III. No doubt is entertained that the indorsement from plaintiff to Bailey, falls within the inhibitions of the act under consideration, as it is a fresh and substantive contract and may be regarded either as a...