Liebman v. Miller — 20 Misc. 705

Majority

p. 705

Joseph Liebman, Respondent, v. Frank Miller, Appellant.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

July, 1897.)

Headnote

Betting and Gaming — Stakeholder of a wager other than a game.

A person who receives moneys under a paper signed by two other persons and stating, “ If Bryan is elected Frank Miller pays Liebman four-hundred dollars,” is a “ stakeholder,” within the meaning of 1 It. S. m. p. 662, s§ 8 and 9, and is liable to one who' deposited moneys with him under like agreement; but the depositor need not bring his action within three months after he has made the- deposit, as section 14 of the statute does not apply to a wager upon an event “ unknown ” or “ contingent,” but refers only to wagers made in playing or betting upon a game.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict.

Einstein & Townsend, for appellant.

Charles M. Koplik, for respondent.

The plaintiff on October 21, 1896, placed in ¿he hands of the defendant Miller, as stakeholder, the sum of $100, his wagering that sum against $300, also apparently placed in

p. 706

Miller’s hands by one L. Fisher. The terms of .the wager is in the defendant’s handwriting as follows: '“If Bryan is elected, Frank Miller pays Liebman. $400.” This writing was headed by the words “ $400 received. Exchange memorandum of election bet between. J. Liebrnan and F. Miller.”

It: is quite apparent, from this writings ' and, from defendant’s letter to plaintiff,, dated October 19, 1896, and also from his verbal /statement made to plaintiff, all of which appears in the printed Srecordj. that defendant acted as stakeholder- of the above wager.

That an actual wager was made between plaintiff and Fisher concerning' the election of a. president of the United States^ and which was hot yet determined is apparent; '

The transaction in question was clearly a wager, and the defendant a stakeholder within the meaning of the law. 1 R. S. 662, §§ 8,9.

The plaintiff’s right to recovery of the fund deposited by him with defendant is clear.

He was not bound to commence his action to recover the same within three months after such delivery, for section 14 of the act just. referred to does "not apply-to wagers of .this kind," but' only playing or betting upon- any game. - ‘ .

This transaction was not a wager or bet upon a game, but. was upon an event which was, at the time of the making of such wager, an unknown or contingent event, and, therefore, does not apply as the appellant asserts.

Upon the whole record, in our judgment, the trial justice was right in directing a verdict for the plaintiff, and the judgment, therefore, is affirmed, with costs.

Schuchman, J., concurs.

■ Judgment affirmed, with costs.