If the loser in a wagering contract pays the winner, he is debarred at common law from recovering the payment because he is in pari delicto.70 But, as has been said, in many states stat-

65 Benicia Agricultural Works v. Estes (Cah), 32 Pac. 938; Dixon v. Cuyler, 27 Ga. 248; Jones p. Dannen-berg, 112. Ga. 426, 37 S. E. 729, 52 L. R. A. 271; Johnson v. McMillion, 178 Ky. 707, 199 S. W. 1070, L. R. A. 1918 C. 244; Baker v. Collins, 9 Allen, 253; Pearce v. Wilson, 11I Pa. 14, 56 Am. Rep. 243; Sanger v. Futch (Tex. Civ. App.), 208 S. W. 681; Pierce v. Kibbee, 51 Vt. 559.

66 Rice v. Winslow, 182 Mass. 273, 275, 65 N. E. 366; Smith v. Kammerer, 152 Pa. 98, 25 Atl. 165. See also Patterson v. Donner, 48 Cal. 369. But see contra, Small v. Williams, 87 Ga. 681, 13 S. E. 589.

67 See McLaughlin v. Cosgrove, 99 Mass. 4.

68 Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 M. & W. 281, 282; King v. Green, 6 Allen, 139; Harris v. Woodruff, 124 Mass. 205, 26 Am. Rep. 658.

69 Rice v. Winslow, 182 Mass. 273, 65 N. E. 366. See also Marden v. Phillips, 103 Fed. 196; Boatright p. Porter's Heirs, 32 Ga. 130; Luetchford v. Lord, 57 Hun, 572,11 N. Y. S. 597, 132 N. Y. 465, 30 N. E. 859; Bond's Lessee v. Swearingen, 1 Ohio, 395.

70 Vaughan v. Whitcomb, 2 Bos. & P. N. R. 413; Davies v. Porter, 248 Fed. 397, 160 C. C. A. 407; Paulk v. Jasper Land Co., 116 Ala. 178,22 So. 495; Johnson v. Collier, 161 Ala. 204, 209, 49 So. 761; Grant v. Owens, 55 Ark. 49, 17 S. W. 338; Branham v. Stallings, 21 Colo. 211, 40 Pac. 396, 52 Am. St utes confer upon the loser either in all or in some specified kinds of gambling transactions the right of recovering money paid.71 It is a general rule, moreover, that while the illegal part of a contract is still executory, there is a locus penitentioe,72 and, therefore, even without a statute, money deposited in the hands of a stakeholder (and doubtless the rule would be the same if the money were intrusted to the other party) may be recovered before the determination of the wager.73 In regard to money deposited with a stakeholder the doctrine goes further than this, and on the ground that the stakeholder is merely the agent of each party as to the money deposited by him, it may be recovered until it has been actually paid over.74

Rep. 213; Funk v. Gallivan, 49 Conn. Pelt v. Schauble, 68 N. J. L. 638, 64

124, 44 Am. Rep. 210; Schlosaer v. Smith, 93 Ind. 83; O'Brien v. Luques, 81 Me. 46, 16 Atl. 304; Northrup v. Buffington, 171 Mass. 468, 51 N. E. 7; Gregory v. Wendell, 40 Mich. 432; Nagle v. Randall, 115 Minn. 235, 132 N. W. 266; Boon v. Gooch, 95 Neb. 678, 146 N. W. 930. Where the transaction under the English law was merely void but not illegal, recovery was allowed. Jaques v. Golightly, 2 W. Bl. 1073; Jaques v. Withy, 1 H. Bl. 65; and recovery was allowed for money paid even on an illegal wager in Lacaussade v. White, 7 T. R. 535; but this case was disapproved in Aubert v. Walsh, 3 Taunt. 277.

71 Williamson v. Majors, 169 Fed 754, 95 C. C. A. 186; Nelson v. Waters, 18 Ark. 570; Richardson v. Kelly, 85 111. 491; Zeller v. White, 208 Bl. 518, 70 N. E. 669, 100 Am. St. Rep. 243; Wehmhoff v. Rutherford, 98 Ky. 91, 32 S. W. 288; Timmons v. Timmons, 145 Ky. 259, 140 S. W. 164; Peyret v. Coffee, 48 Me. 319; Miller, v. LePiere, 136 Mass. 20; Jones v. Cavanaugh, 149 Mass. 124, 21 N. E. 306; Fiske v. Doucette, 206 Mass. 275, 92 N. E. 255; Adams v. Dick, 226 Mass. 46,115 N. E. 227; Perry v. Gross, 25 Neb. 826, 41 N. W. 799; Summers v. Keller, 152 Mo. App. 626, 133 S. W. 1180; Watts v. Lynch, 64 N. H. 96, 5 Atl. 458; Van

Atl. 437; Mann v. Gordon, 15 N. Mex. 652, 110 Pac. 1043; Wilkinson v. Gill, 74 N. Y. 63, 30 Am. Rep. 264; Johnson v. Clark, 23 N. Y. Misc. 346, 51 N. Y. S. 238; Lester v. Buel, 49 Ohio St. 240, 30 N. E. 821, 34 Am. St. Rep. 556; McGrew v. City Produce Exchange, 85 Tenn. 572, 4 S. W. 38, 4 Am. St. Rep. 771; Mitchell v. Orr, 107 Tenn. 534, 64 S. W. 476; Mclntyre v. Smyth, 108 Va. 736, 62 S. E. 930; Crowley v. Taylor, 49 Wash. 511, 95 Pac. 1016. Under such a statute it was held in Auxer v. Llewellyn, 142 111. App. 265, that recovery was permissible although the plaintiff was a party to a conspiracy to win the money of others by arranging wagers on a "fake" fight.

72 See infra, Sec.1788.

73 Kearney v. Webb, 278 111 17, 115 N. E. 844; Davis v. Fleshman, 245 Pa. 224, 91 Atl. 489; Trebilcock v. Walsh, 21 Ont. App. 55, and cases in the following note. But where the wager is itself a statutory misdemeanor it was held that there was no locus penitentuB after making it. Matthews v. Lopus, 24 Calif. App. 63, 140 Pac. 306; Schenck v. Hirshfeld, 22 Calif. App. 709, 136 Pac. 725; Kelley v. Dirks (S. Dak.), 167 N. W. 724.

74 O'sullivan v. Thomas, [1895] 1 Q. B. 698; Burgce v. Ashley, [1900]