If negotiable paper made by the loser is given to the winner in a gambling transaction, the latter can maintain no action upon it.47

An indorsee of an instrument who is not a holder in due course clearly stands in no better position than the original payee.48 A renewal of a negotiable instrument originally given for an unenforceable gambling debt is itself unenforceable;"

Tomblin v. Callen, 69 Iowa, 220, 28 N. W. 573.

46 In re Taylor's Estate, 102 Pa. St. 304, 43 Atl. 073, 73 Am. St. Rep. 812; Young v. Glendinning, 104 Pa. St. 550, 45 Atl. 364; but see Riordan v. Doty, 50 S. C. 537, 27 S. E. 030.

47 Hay v. Ayling, 16 Q. B. 423; Union Collection Co. v. Buckman, 150 Cal. 150, 88 Pac. 708, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 568, 110 Am. St. Rep. 164; Boughner v. Meyer, 5 Colo. 71, 40 Am. Rep. 130; Bates v. Cronin's Estate, 106 III. App. 178; Bride v. Clark, 161 Mass. 130, 36 N. E. 745; Kemp v. Hammond Hotels, 226 Mass. 400, 115 N. E. 572; Remer v. Ettinger, 48 N. Y. Misc. 641, 06 N. Y. S. 263; Orvis v. Holt-Morgan Mills, 173 N. C. 231,91S. E. 048; Gaw v. Bennett, 153 Pa. 247, 25 Atl. 1114, 34 Am. St. 600; Booher v. Anderson,

35 Tex. Civ. App. 436, 80 S. W. 385; Ash v. Clark, 32 Wash. 300, 73 Pac. 351. And see many cases collected 110 Am. St Rep. 174 n., also cases infra in this section.

48 Hawley v. Bibb, 60 Ala. 52; Union Collection Co. v. Buckman, 150 Cal. 150, 88 Pac. 708, 0 L. R. A. (N. S.) 568; Benson v. Dublin Warehouse Co., 99 Ga. 303, 25 S. E. 645; Sondheim v. Gilbert, 117 Ind. 71, 18 N. E. 687, 5 L. R. A. 432, 10 Am. St. Rep. 23; Murphy v. Rogers, 151 Mass. 118, 24 N. E. 35; Gooch v. Faucett, 122 N. C. 270, 20 S. E. 362, 30 L. R. A. 835; Winward v. Lincoln, 23 R. I. 476, 51 Atl. 106, 64 L. R. A. 160.

49 Hay v. Ayling, 16 Q. B. 423; Kuhl v. M. Gaily Universal Press Co., 123 Ala. 452, 26 So. 535, 82 Am. St. Rep. 135; Stone v. Mitchell, 7 Ark. 01; and an agreement of compromise of such a claim is equally invalid.60