Davis v. Fleshman & Co.

Citations

• 245 Pa. 224
• 91 A. 489
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 864

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Wagering contracts — Action to recover stake — Evidence — Burden of proof — Nonsuit.</p> <p>1. A recovery may be had from a stakeholder even though, the contingency upon -which the bet turned has happened if the stake has not actually been paid over to the winner, but the law declares all mere wagering contracts illegitimate transactions and void, and will not enforce them at the instance of either party. It will not aid the winner to recover from the loser the amount of the stake, and will not give assistance to the loser to recover back the amount of the bet after the transaction has been closed.</p> <p>2. In an action to recover the amount of a stake deposited by the plaintiff with the other party to a wagering contract, the burden is upon the plaintiff to show that at the time when the- demand for the return of the stake was made the transaction was open, undetermined and unexecuted, and that the contingent event which was to determine the bet had not taken place.</p> <p>8. In an action to recover $1,860, deposited by plaintiff with defendant, as security for the payment of wagers, the court did not err in entering a nonsuit where it appeared that defendant firm operated. a ’‘bucket shop” and accepted bets from plaintiff upon the fluctuations of the prices of stock on the New York Stock Exchange, and that plaintiff made deposits with defendant as security for the payment of losses which plaintiff might incur; that plaintiff deposited various sums aggregating $1,860, and that in six transactions, in which the total payments were $220, the plaintiff was the winner; that plaintiff then ordered the transactions closed and demanded his profits and defendant failed the following day; and the evidence did not show with certainty that the other transactions were open, undetermined and unexecuted on the day when the plaintiff ordered the whole series of transactions closed, or that there was any sum remaining at the time in the hands of the defendant depen