Moore v. Schwartz
195 N.C. 549
Opinion
Gaming contracts are covered by C. S., 2142. Such contracts are void and cannot be enforced in a court of justice. Orvis v. Holt, 173 N. C., 231; Bank v. Crafton, 181 N. C., 404.
Under certain circumstances the holder of a check or a note given to pay a gambling debt may recover against the endorser. Bank v. Crafton, supra. This is not such a ease as the endorser is not sued.
No error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Moore v. Schwartz, 195 N.C. 549 (N.C. 1928).
195 N.C. 549 (Moore v. Schwartz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Orvis Bros. v. Holt-Morgan Mills
91 S.E. 948 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Crafton
107 S.E. 316 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)