Columbia Bank & Bridge Co. v. Haldeman

A contract made about a matter which is prohibited by statute is void, though the statute itself does not expressly declare that it shall be so. A bond given to a stake-holder to indemnify him for giving up, to the winner, money deposited as a bet upon an election, is void, and there can be no recovery upon it.

ERROR to the District Court of Lancaster county. Evan Green, administrator of Preston B. Elder, for the use of the Columbia Bank and Bridge Co., against Henry Haldeman. This action was founded upon a bond of Henry Haldeman and others to Preston B. Elder, cashier of the Columbia Bank and Bridge Co., in the penalty of $4600, with the following condition :— “ The condition of the above obligation is such, that whereas Peter F. Gonter and Reuben Mullison did bet with James Caldwell $2100 on the genera] election, that is, Gonter and Mullison betting that David.R. Porter would get more votes than Joseph Ritner for governor, and James Caldwell betting that he would not; also, Reuben Mullison bet with James Caldwell that Porter would get more majority over Ritner in Berks county than Ritner would over Porter in Lancaster county; also, James Collins bet with Charles Odell $100 on the general election, that is, Collins betting on Porter and Odell on Ritner. And that all the above bets were deposited with the said Preston B. Elder. Now, believing that Messrs Gonter, Mullison and Collins are by agreement justly entitled to all the said money, the said Preston B. Elder giving the same up to them: Therefore, the said Henry Haldeman, James Given, Reuben Mullison, Robert W. Houston, James Collins and Peter F. Gonter, do by these presents indemnify and save harmless the said Preston B. Elder, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, from any loss or damage which he might sustain by reason of giving up the bets aforesaid, or any part thereof, without fraud or further delay; then this obligation to be void, otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue.” After giving the bond in evidence, the plaintiffs proved that after the money had been paid over by them to the winner, James Caldwell had brought suit against them and recovered the whole amount of it from them; and that the present defendant had notice of that suit, and conducted the defence of it. The defence set up was that the bond was void, because it was a contract made in contravention of the Act of Assembly of the 24th March 1817. Hayes (President) instructed the jury that the bond was void, and directed them to render a verdict for the defendant. argued that the contract sued upon was not in violation of the statute; the only question is, was it illegal for the plaintiff to take, or the defendant to give, a bond of indemnity? The plaintiff was not a party to the illegal act of wagering, and the contract sued upon is not a part, but independent of that illegal act. The object of the law was to prevent betting, that there might be no illegitimate influence upon the result of the election; now, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was interested in the result; their contract grew out of matters entirely subsequent to it, and not dependent at all upon it. Cited 7 Watts 294, 343 ; 3 Watts 263; 4 Burr. 2049; 3 Term Rep. 418; 5 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 255; 11 Wheat. 250, 270; 11 Serg.fyRawle 155; Strange 1249. The contract sued upon grows out of, and expressly recites as its consideration, an illegal transaction which cannot itself be enforced; and if the plaintiff can recover here, it may be used as a device in every such case to avoid the operation of the law against wagering on elections. The law must be enforced, not only against the parties to the original transaction, but against all others who seek a legal remedy for a supposed wrong growing out of it. Cited 2 Kent Com. 466; 3 Vez. 373; 2 Stark. Ev. 60; 4 Teates 29; 4 Wash. C. C. 297; 1 Watts Serg. 281.