Love v. Harvey

114 Mass. 80
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 114 Mass. 80 (Love v. Harvey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Love v. Harvey, 114 Mass. 80 (Mass. 1873).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

In England and in New York, actions on wagers upon questions in which the parties had no previous interest were frequently sustained, until the Legislature interposed and declared all wagers to be void. 1 Chit. Con. (11th Am. ed.) 735-738. 3 Kent Com. 277, 278. In Scotland, the courts refused to entertain such actions. Bruce v. Ross, 3 Paton, 107, 112; S. C. cited 3 T. R. 697, 705.

In Massachusetts, the English law on this subject has never been adopted, used or approved, and, although the question has not been directly adjudged, it has long been understood that all wagers are unlawful. Const. Mass. c. 6, art. 6. Amory v. Gilman, 2 Mass. 1, 6. Ball v. Gilbert, 12 Met. 397, 399. Sampson v. Shaw, 101 Mass. 145, 150. Met. Con. 239. There are decisions or opinions to the same effect in each of the New England States. Lewis v. Littlefield, 15 Maine, 233. Perkins v. Eaton, 3 N. H. 152. Hoit v. Hodge, 6 N. H. 104. Collamer v. Day, 2 Vt. 144. West v. Holmes, 26 Vt. 530. Stoddard v. Martin, 1 R. I. 1, 2. Wheeler v. Spencer, 15 Conn. 28, 30. See also Edgell v. M'Laughlin, 6 Whart. 176; Rice v. Gist, 1 Strob. 82.

It is inconsistent alike with the policy of our laws, and with the performance of the duties for which courts of justice are established, that judges and juries should be occupied in answering every frivolous question upon which idle or foolish persons may choose to lay a wager.

The ruling at the trial was therefore correct, and the defendant, having received the money from the stakeholder after notice [83]*83from the plaintiff not to pay it over, was liable to the plaintiff under the count for money had and received. McKee v. Manice, 11 Cush. 357.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Walter
8 C.M.A. 50 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1957)
Eastern Expanded Metal Co. v. Webb Granite & Construction Co.
81 N.E. 251 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Baxter v. Deneen
57 A. 601 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1904)
Marden v. Phillips
103 F. 196 (D. Massachusetts, 1900)
Pearce v. Rice
142 U.S. 28 (Supreme Court, 1891)
Flagg v. Gilpin
19 A. 1084 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1890)
Harvey v. Merrill
5 L.R.A. 200 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)
Dunn v. Bell
85 Tenn. 581 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1887)
Irwin v. Williar
110 U.S. 499 (Supreme Court, 1884)
Lewis v. Bruton
74 Ala. 317 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1883)
McDonough v. Webster
68 Me. 530 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1878)
Morgan v. Beaumont
121 Mass. 7 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 Mass. 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/love-v-harvey-mass-1873.