424 



WAGERS. 



affects Con- 

 tract ■which 

 makes Wiiffer. 



Statute 

 against Wa- 

 gering Poli- 

 cies. 



What held to 

 be such a 

 Policy. 



Wager as to 

 declaration 

 of War. 



What was 

 held not to 

 be such a 

 Policy. 



tlie'Bet or "Wager (.r). Thus where the plaintiff, a broker, 

 was employed by the defendant to speculate for him on 

 the Stock Exchange ; to the knowledge of the plaintiff the 

 defendant did not intend to accept the stock bought for 

 him, or to deliver the stock sold for him, but expected that 

 the plaintiff would so arrange matters that nothiug but 

 differences should be payable by him ; and the plaintiff 

 accordingly entered into contracts on behalf of the defen- 

 dant upon which he became personally liable, and sued the 

 defendant for indemnity against the liability incurred by 

 him, and for commission as a broker; it was held by the 

 Court of Appeal, affirming the judgment of Lindley, J., 

 that the contract was not illegal at common law, and was 

 not in the nature of a Gaming and Wagering contract 

 against the provisions of the statute (>/). 



It is enacted by 14 Greo. 3, c. 48, s. 1, that " No In- 

 surance shall be made by any Person or Persons, Bodies 

 Politic or Corporate, on the life or lives of any person 

 or persons, or on any other event or events whatsoever, 

 wherein the person or persons for whose use, benefit, or 

 on whose account such Policy or Policies shall be made, 

 shall have no interest, or by way of 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 pm-poses whatsoever." 



An engagement, in consideration of forty guineas, to 

 pay 100/. in case Brazilian Shares should be done at a 

 certain sum on a certain day, subscribed by several per- 

 sons, each for themselves, is a Policy void mider 14 

 Geo. 3, c. 48 (;:). 



Where a Wager was made that war would be declared 

 against France within three months, it was held by the 

 Courts of Queen's Bench and Common Pleas, although 

 the Coiu't of Exchequer was of a contrary opinion, that 

 the Wager was void under 14 Geo. 3, c. 48. No Judg- 

 ment, however, was ever given on the case {a). 



Where money was advanced upon an Assignment of 

 an expected devise, with a condition that if there should 

 not be such a devise, then that the money should be re- 



[x) Per Brett, L. J., Cooper v. 

 Niel, 27 W. R. 1.59. 



(y) Hardy v. Thacker, L. R., 4 

 Q. B. D. 685 ; 48 L. J., Q. B. 

 289; 39 L. T., N. S. 595; 27 W. 



R. 158— C. A. 



(z) ratersoii v. Toivell, 9 Bing. 

 320. 



[ii) See Foatcr v. Thackeray, cited 

 in Allen v. Hearyu 1 T. R. 57, n. 



