Skip to main content
· 9/15/1870

Chapin v. Dake

Citations

  • 57 Ill. 295

Syllabus

<p>1. Gaming—indorsement of commercial paper in consideration of, void. A party in possession of íavo drafts for $1000 each, drawn in his favor, having lost $1500 at gaming, indorsed the same and delivered them to the winner, receiving by way of change, $500 in money: Held, that under our statute against gaming the indorsement was void, and the property in the drafts remained in the payee ; and although in the hands of an innocent holder for value, the legal consequence of such an indorsement must, under the statute, be the same—that no more effect could be given to it than to a forged indorsement.</p> <p>2. Same—chancery, jurisdiction. A court of equity has jurisdiction in such case to compel the holder to surrender the drafts to the payee.</p> <p>3. But the payee, to entitle him to recover the drafts, should pay to the holder the $500 which he received by way of change in paying his loss with the drafts.</p> <p>4 Same—interest, whether can he recovered. Nor should he be allowed interest on the drafts. All the statute enables him to recover, is the money or tiling lost, with costs.</p> <p>5. Costs—in such case—against whom, to he adjudged. The payee having filed a bill in chancery in which the first indorsee, the drawer, and the holder of the drafts, were made parties defendant, to enjoin their payment by the drawer to the holder, the drawee having refused to pay them, and to have his indorsement cancelled and the drafts delivered up to him, upon a cross bill filed by the drawer, averring his readiness at all times to pay the drafts to the lawful owner, and offering to pay the amount into court, with prayer that the different claimants interplead and settle the ownership of the drafts, it was held, a decree allowing tlie complainant in the cross bill $100 for solicitor’s fees was erroneous. Only his costs should have been allowed.</p> <p>6. In such case the costs of the original, but not of the cross bill, would be properly adjudged against the first indorsee.</p>

Judges: Lawrence, McAllister, Scott, Sheldon

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.