Page images
PDF
EPUB

contracts.

Wagering law or equity for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager, or which shall have been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event upon which any wager shall have been made; provided always that this enactment shall not be deemed to apply to any subscription or contribution for any plate, prize, or sum of money to be awarded to the winner of any lawful game, sport, pastime, or exercise." The proviso in this section applies where two persons only, being the actual players at the lawful game, subscribe a sum of money to be paid to the winner, and protects the transaction from the effect of the previous enactment (a). It does not apply to a race between two horses upon the terms that both horses should become the property of the owner of the winning horse (b).

Securities

won by

The above statute placed all wagers in the same position: for money though not declared to be illegal in the sense of being forwagering. bidden or visited with a penalty, they were rendered void of legal effect. Hence, under this statute securities, as bills or notes, given in payment of or to secure money won by wagering, are given for money not recoverable by law, which is equivalent to being given without a valid consideration. The consequence, in the case of bills or notes, is that they cannot be enforced by a holder, to whom they can be proved to have been negotiated without consideration; but they are not affected by the general rule as to bills tainted with illegality in their inception, which requires that a subsequent holder, upon proof of the illegal inception of the instrument, should show that he gave value for it (c).

Securities

won by

Bills, notes, and other securities for money won by or lent for money for gaming come under the operation of other statutes. By gaming. the statute 9 Anne c. 14, s. 1, it was enacted "that all notes, bills, bonds, etc. or other securities given or executed by any person, where the whole or any part of the consideration of such securities shall be for any money or other valuable thing whatsoever, won by gaming or playing at

(a) Batty v. Marriott, 5 C. B. 818; and see Parsons v. Alexander, 5 E. & B. 263; 21 L. J. Q. B. 277.

(b) Coombes v. Dibble, L. Rep. 1,

Ex. 248; 35 L. J. Ex. 167.

(c) Fitch v. Jones, 5 E. & B. 238; 24 L. J. Q. B. 293; and see Edmunds v. Groves, 2 M. & W. 642.

cards, dice, tables, tennis, bowls, or other game or games whatsoever, or by betting on the sides or hands of such as do game at any of the games aforesaid, or for the repaying any money knowingly lent or advanced for such gaming or betting as aforesaid, shall be utterly void and of none effect." And by the statute 5 & 6 Wm. IV. c. 41, s. 1, it is enacted that all such notes bills and securities, instead of being absolutely void, “shall be deemed and taken to have been made, drawn, accepted, given, or executed for an illegal consideration." The statute 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 15, repealed so much of the above statute of Anne as was not altered by the statute of Wm. IV., that is, all of the statute except the portion is above stated. The effect of these statutes is that bills and notes given for the considerations stated therein are illegal, and therefore void, except in the hands of a bona fide holder without notice (a); and the illegal inception of the instrument requires proof of the consideration (b).

insurance.

Wagering policies of insurance made without any interest Wagering in the event insured, as a policy made upon a ship, "interest policies of or no interest," were valid contracts by the common law (c). By 19 Geo. II. c. 37, s. 1, it was enacted "that no assurance or assurances shall be made by any person or persons, bodies corporate or politic, on any ship or ships belonging to his Majesty or any of his subjects, or any goods, merchandises, or effects, laden or to be laden on board of any such ship or ships, interest or no interest, or without further proof of interest than the policy, or by way of gaming or wagering, or without benefit of salvage to the assurer; and that every such assurance shall be null and void to all intents and purposes.' Though a policy of insurance upon a ship without any interest in it is void under this enactment, the interest insured in a policy may be valued in the policy at a fixed sum independently of its real value, and the insured would be entitled to recover such fixed sum for a total loss, or a pro

[ocr errors]

(a) Hay v. Ayling, 16 Q. B. 423; and see Byles on Bills, 8th ed. 128; and see further as to betting and the recovery of money deposited on a bet, 16 & 17 Vict. c. 119, s. 4, 5, the Act for the suppression of betting-houses,

Doggett v. Catterms, 34 L. J. C. P. 46.
(b) Edmunds v. Groves, 4 M. & W.
642.

(c) Cousins v. Nantes, 3 Taunt. 513,
515; and see Dalby v. India Ass. Co.,
15 C. B. 365; 24 L. J. C. P. 2, 6.

Wagering portional part of it for a partial loss (a). "Valued policies, policies of insurance. though frequently in effect wagering policies, have been permitted, because it has been supposed that the convenience of them is greater than would result from the prohibition of them" (b).

"that

The statute 14 Geo. III. c. 48, enacted :-By s. 1, no insurance shall be made by any person on the life of any person, or on any other event or events whatsoever, wherein the person for whose use, benefit, or on whose account such policy shall be made shall have no interest, or by gaming, or wagering; and that every assurance made contrary to the true intent and meaning hereof shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever."-By s. 3, "that in all cases where the insured hath interest in such life or lives, event or events, no greater sum shall be recovered or received from the insurer or insurers, than the amount or value of the interest of the insured in such life or lives, or other event or events."

Under this statute it is held that a husband has an insurable interest in his wife's life, and the wife in her husband's life (c); but the interest of a father in the life of a child is not sufficient alone to support an insurance on the child's life (d). A creditor promised his debtor that he would not enforce payment of the debt during his life, but without any consideration or any circumstance to make the promise binding; it was held that the debtor did not acquire by the promise an insurable interest in the life of the debtor (e). A contract of employment at a fixed salary for a certain number of years was held to give the employed an insurable interest in the life of his employer (ƒ).

The statute is satisfied if there is a sufficient interest in the life insured at the time of effecting the insurance; and the amount is recoverable, although the interest may cease

(a) Irving v. Manning, 6 C. B. 391, As to what constitutes an insurable interest see Seagrave v. Union Marine Ins. Co., L. Rep. 1 C. P. 305, 319; 35 L. J. C. P. 172, 176, and the cases there cited.

(b) Per Lord Eldon, Lucena v. Craufurd, 2 B. & P. N. R. 269, 322.

(c) Reed v. Key, Peake's Add. Cases, 70; Huckman v. Fernie, 3 M. & W. 505.

(d) Halford v. Kymer, 10 B. & C. 724. (e) Hebdon v. West, 3 B. & S. 579; 32 L. J. Q. B. 85.

(f) Hebdon v. West, supra.

before the determination of the policy (a). If the insured insures the same interest with several insurers, he can only recover upon the whole the value of his interest; and if he has received the whole amount from one insurer, he is precluded by the 3rd section of the above statute from recovering any more from the others (b).

The 7 Geo. II. c. 8, s. 1, (commonly called Sir John Bar- Wagers on the price of nard's Act) enacted that all wagers, and contracts in the na- public ture of wagers, relating to the present, or future price, or stocks. value of any public, or joint stock, or other public securities. should be void, and subjected such contracts to various penal and other consequences rendering them illegal. This statute has recently been repealed by the statute 23 Vict. c. 28, leaving such contracts in the same condition as other wagering contracts, which are simply void under the statute 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, above cited.

lic offices.

The traffic in public offices is unlawful at common law, as Sale of pubbeing against public policy, and is also provided against by statutes; consequently, no valid contract can arise out of a transaction tainted with such illegality (c). The defendant, in consideration of £5000, promised to procure the command of a ship in the East India Company's service for another, and to repay the same sum when any other person should be appointed; the contract was held void on the ground of the illegality in the sale of the appointment, so that an action would not lie against the defendant for not repaying the money (d). The defendant covenanted, in consideration of the sale to him of shares in a ship in the East India Company's service, to permit the plaintiffs, the vendors of the shares, to manage the ship and appoint the officers; it was

(a) Dalby v. India and London Insurance Co., 15 C. B. 365; 24 L. J. C. P. 2; overruling Godsall v. Boldero, 9 East, 72; 2 Smith's L. C. 5th ed. 222; Law v. London Indisputable Life Policy Co., 1 K. & J. 223; 24 L. J. C. 196.

(b) Hebdon v. West, 3 B. & S. 579; 32 L. J. Q. B. 85.

(c) See 5 & 6 Ed. VI. c. 16; 49 Geo. III. c. 126; Chitty's statutes,

[blocks in formation]

lic offices.

Sale of pub- held upon the same grounds, that this covenant was illegal and could not be enforced (a). Where a similar contract was made with reference to the command of a ship chartered by the East India Company, but the company were informed of the whole transaction and approved of it, the contract was held to be valid (b).

The com

mitting of

:

Contracts made in consideration of the resignation of, or to procure the resignation of, public offices are also illegal. The plaintiff, holding an office in a government dockyard, made an agreement with the defendant, that in consideration of the plaintiff procuring himself to be superannuated, the defendant would, in case he succeeded the plaintiff, pay him a certain share of the annual profits of the office; the agreement was held illegal and void, Lord Loughborough, C.J., saying "The consideration here was that the plaintiff represented himself as unfit for future service and entitled to a pension for the past. Now the representation was either true or false. If true the plaintiff did nothing for the defendant, all he did was for his own ease and advantage; if false the public is deceived, the pension misapplied, and the service injured" (c). A bond given to secure a sum of money, being the contribution of an officer of a regiment in the East India Company's service towards a sum of money subscribed by officers of the regiment to buy out a senior officer, was held invalid, on the ground that the money was subscribed for the illegal purpose of procuring an officer to resign his commission (d). An agreement made in consideration of the plaintiff resigning the office of distributor of stamps and collector of assessed taxes, and endeavouring to procure the defendant to be appointed thereto, was held illegal and void (e).

The commission of public offences, or private injuries, is wrongs and obviously illegal, and will not form valid matter for the consideration or the promise. Thus, a printer cannot recover

offences.

(a) Card v. Hope, 2 B. & C. 661.
(b) Richardson v. Mellish, 2 Bing.

229.

(c) Parsons v. Thompson, 1 H. Bl.
322;
and see Garforth v. Fearon,

1 H. Bl. 327.

(d) Graeme v. Wroughton, 11 Ex. 146; 24 L. J. Ex. 265. (e) Hopkins v. Prescott, 4 C. B. 578.

« EelmineJätka »