STAKEHOLDERS. 397 



dissent from the payment, lie may recover it from the 

 Stakeholder. For although the event has happened, yet 

 the contract is not completely executed until the money 

 has been paid over, and therefore the party may retract at 

 any time before that has been done {i). Some doubt in- 

 deed has been thrown upon this case, Mr. Baron Alderson, 

 in Mearing v. Hellings [k), saying of it, "I accede to its 

 authority, though I think it a very strong decision. It 

 does not convince me. It overcomes me." And Pollock, 

 C. B., in the same case said, " With respect to the case of 

 Ilastclow V. Jackson, I forbear saying anything about it 

 at present ; it is binding upon us until reviewed by a Court 

 of Error. If the same question arose before me, I should 

 certainly advise a bill of exceptions." And, in the case of 

 IPEhcaine v. Mercer (/), Hastelow v. Jaekson was held by 

 the Irish Court of Common Pleas to be irreconcilable with 

 the law as established by 8 & 9 Yict. c. 109, s. 18. But 

 it has never been expressly overruled, and indeed with 

 these exceptions it has been treated uniformly, both from 

 the Bench and by text writers, as an authority (^m) . 



If it be pleaded to an action, for 3Io)iei/ had and received, Bring-ing an 

 that the money was staked on an illegal Game, the plaintiff ^^^2^^ ^°* 

 must show in answer that he demanded back the Stake 

 before it was paid over, the mere bringing an action before 

 payment over not being a sufficient demand (//). 



But although the contract be illegal or void, yet if the Wliere the 

 event happens, and the money is paid over by the Stake- ^^JfJ ^^ 



K ^ t • -I • puicl over 



holder without dispute, there is a complete execution of without dis- 

 the contract, and the money cannot be reclaimed (o). pute. 



If a person pays his entrance money to the Clerk of the Where a 



(j) Hastelow Y. Jackson, 8 B. & C. {m) Per Bramwell, B., Bone v. 



227. And see Hampden v. TFalsh, Ekless, 5 H. & N. 928. Per Cock- 



L. R., 1 Q. B. D. 189 ; 45 L. J., b\im, C. J., Hampden v. Walsh, L. 



Q. B. 238 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 852 ; R., 1 Q. B. D. 193 ; 45 L. J., Q. 



24 W. R. 607 ; Biggie v. Higgs, L. B. 238 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 852 ; 24 



R., 2 Ex. D. 422 ; 46 L. J., Ex. W. R. 607 ; Higgle y. Higgs, L. R., 



721 ; 37 L. T., N. S. 27 ; 25 W. 2 Ex. D. 422 ; 46 L. J., Ex. 721 ; 



R. 777— C. A. 37 L. T., N. S. 27 ; 25 W. R. 777 



(k) Mearing v. Hellings, 14 M. & — C. A. See also Selw. N. P. r2th 



W. 712. ed. 97, and 2 Sm. L. C. 7th ed. 



(;) 3PElwaine v. Mercer, 9 Ir. 530. 



Com. Law Reps. 13. The judg- («) GattyY. Field,9) Q.-'B. iZl. 



ment in this case appears to he (o) Hastelow v. Jackson, 8 B. & 



founded upon a misconception of the C. 226; and see Moore v. Cooper, 



principle which rules the English before Mr. R. Gumey, Sheriffs' 



decisions, and of the facts in the Court, Dec. 10, 1853. And per 



case of Hastelow v. Jackson. Erie, J., Q. B., N. P., Guikllaall, 



in Pike x.Alcock, Jan. 26, 1858. 



