TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Thomas v. Cronise

Cushing Thomas v. Henry Cronise

Thomas v. Cronise, 16 Ohio St. 54 (1847)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Ohio Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1847
Judges
Read
Citations
16 Ohio St. 54
Headnotes
A. court of chancery will not set aside a deed executed upon the consideration of a hot upon the rosult of an election, but will leave the parties as it finds them.
Summary
This is a bill in chancery, roserved in the county of Seneca. The bill charges in substance, that one John Strong and Henry Cronise, the respondent, made a bet upon the result of the election for governor in 1842, of lot No. 96, in Tiffin, in Seneca county. That Strong executed a deed of *said lot, with general covenant of warranty to the respondent, and delivered the game-to one Clark, as stake-holder. That the only consideration for the execution of the deed was said wager upon the result of the election. That Clark, contrary to the express request of Strong, after the election, delivered the deed to Cronise. That complainant is ignorant of the terms of the wager, and calls upon Cronise for full answer. That possession is in Strong and himself. That Strong, who made said bet, sold the lot in question for $79 to John Strong, Sen., who sold and deeded it to complainant for $70, on September 24, 1845. That he was ignorant of the deed of Cronise at the time of his purchase. . That Cronise has given out in speeches, that he claims said lot under said deed. The bill prays that the deed to Cronise may be declared fraudulent and void, and that complainant may have the lot decreed to him as the lawful owner, and calls upon respondent to make full answer on oath. Cronise, in his answer, admits the wager, and states that the bet was upon the result of the election of governor of the State of Ohio, in the year 1842. The answer further states, that Strong executed the deed above named to Cronise, and that Cronise executed a deed for a lot to Strong. These deeds were deposited with Sylvester B. Clark, as stakeholder. If Corwin should be elected governor, the two deeds were to be delivered to Strong; and if Shannon, the two deeds were to be delivered to Cronise. Shannon was elected, and the deeds were delivered to Cronise, at the request of Strong. That Strong expressed himself satisfied with the transaction after the deed was delivered. That Clark complained against Cronise for making the bet, before the mayor of the town of Tiffin, and that he was fined in the sum of $100. That he delivered the deed for the lot in question to the recorder for record, on July 1, 1843. That he has been in possession of said lot ever since. That no consideration ever passed from Strong the elder to Strong the junior for the lot. Cronise also sets up a purchase *at a tax sale, since the deed convoying the lot to him, and asserts complete title in himself, and prays to be dismissed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Read

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Read, J.

It is a universal principle, both in law and equity, that where an agreement is founded upon a consideration illegal, immoral, or against public policy, a court will leave the parties where it finds them. If executed, the court will not rescind it; if ex-ecutory, the court will not aid in its execution. Raguet v. Cowles, 14 Ohio, 55. Betting upon elections was always immoral, and against public policy; but was not made criminal until the act of 1839, and is not embraced in the general act to prevent gaming, which declares all agreements made upon gambling considerations void, and authorizes the losing party to recover back money or property lost upon a bet or wager. There is no statute which gives relief in a case of this sort, either in a court of law or equity. It rests upon the general principles wo have asserted. The parties being in pari delicto, the court will not interfere.

It is claimed that this is a bill to quiet title under the statute. In such case, the complainant must have both the legal title and possession. In this case he has neither.

Bill dismissed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1909: 11918: 11919: 11926: 11939: 119092026peak 1909 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Komen v. City of St. Louis289 S.W. 838 (Mo. 1926)
  2. Allman v. City of Mobile50 So. 238 (Ala. 1909)
  3. State v. City of Tampa187 So. 604 (Fla. 1939)
  4. Greenburg v. City of Cleveland98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 282 (1918)
  5. Kasch v. City of Akron100 Ohio St. (N.S.) 229 (1919)

Most recent

  1. State v. City of Tampa187 So. 604 (Fla. 1939)
  2. Komen v. City of St. Louis289 S.W. 838 (Mo. 1926)
  3. Kasch v. City of Akron100 Ohio St. (N.S.) 229 (1919)
  4. Greenburg v. City of Cleveland98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 282 (1918)
  5. Allman v. City of Mobile50 So. 238 (Ala. 1909)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list