STAKEHOI.DERS. 393 



where the Race might still bo nm and decided, each party 

 must make a specific demand of his Stake from the Stake- 

 holder before he can recover from him, because in this 

 ease it is necessary to inform the Stakeholder, that the 

 authority given to him to keep the money has been 

 revoked (q). 



He cannot set off a claim of an unpaid Stake due from Cannot set off 

 a person on one Race against a Stake won by the same ^ uupai^l 

 person in another Race (r). 



If he cashes a Cheque deposited with him, he is not Where he 

 guilty of a breach of duty, if the parties agreed to treat the ^^-y ^^^^ ^ 

 Cheque as money (s). 



When the eijtrance money has been paid or agreed to Stake must 

 be paid to the Stakeholder, it must, according to the ^^^*^® *^*^ 

 general principle of all contracts, abide the result of the i^^^i c^^. 

 Race, which, being a legal contract, it cannot be recovered tract, 

 by the party who has made the entry, unless there be a 

 mutual agreement for the rescission of the contract, which 

 is called being "off by consent." On this point an 

 opinion was expressed by Mr. Baron Parke, where an 

 action had been brought by a party to recover back his 

 own entrance money, after a Race had been run, for which 

 his Horse had not started. It was held he could not 

 recover it, because he had given no Notice before the 

 Race ; and his Lordship said, " Even if the plaintiff had 

 given notice in due time that he should require his Stake 

 to be retiu"ned, this being a legal Horse Race, I have 

 great doubts that it would be recoverable, the agreement 

 being that it should be deposited to abide the event, which 

 agreement cannot, as it seems to me, be varied without the 

 assent of all parties. But here there was no demand 

 made ; no rescission of the contract before the Race " (/). 



And where before 8 & 9 Yict", c. 109, the sum of ten A Foot Race, 

 shillings was deposited with a Stakeholder to abide the 

 event of a Foot Race, Mr. Baron Parke said, " The trans- 

 action is valid and the contract binding ; and therefore one 

 of the parties cannot determine it by a simple countermand, 

 without the consent of all the other parties depositing " {u). 



After the passing of 8 et 9 Vict. c. 109, where two 



{q) Carr v. Martinson, 28 L. J., (0 Marryat Y.BrodericJc, 2 M. & 



Q. B. 126. W. 369. See also Broicn v. Over- 



{r) Charlton v. BUI, 5 C. & P. hur>i, 25 L. J., Ex. 169. 

 147. (") Emery v. Richards, 14 M. & 



(«) Wilkinson v. Godcfroy, 9 A. & W. 729. 

 E. 536. . - 



