In a few States demand must be made upon the stakeholder before the wager has been decided.75 If a stakeholder pays the winner, before receiving notice of repudiation of the wager, he is not liable,76 unless made so by statute.77 Repudiation must be absolute. A notification not to pay the winner until further notice has been held insufficient.78 The winner cannot maintain an action against the stakeholder for the whole sum.79 If notwithstanding notice not to do so, the stakeholder pays the money to the winner, the loser may recover his deposit not only from the stakeholder,80 but from the winner.81 If, however, after the wager is decided against one of the parties, he, contending that he is the winner, demands the whole sum deposited by both parties and forbids its payment to the other party, he cannot, after payment of the whole deposit to the other party, recover from the stakeholder the amount deposited by himself.82 Some decisions, however, allow even this.83

1 Q. B. 744; Lewis v. Bruton, 74 Ala. 317, 49 Am. Rep. 816; Thomhill v. O'Rear, 108 Ala. 299, 19 So. 382, 31 L. R. A. 792; Wheeler v. Spencer, 15 Conn. 28; Hale v. Sherwood, 40 Conn. 332, 16 Am. Rep. 37; Colson v. Meyers, 80 Ga. 499; s. c., sub nam., Myers v. Colson, 5 S. E. 504; Petition v. Hippie, 90 111. 420, 32 Am. Rep. 31; Frybarger v. Simpson, 11 Ind. 59; Burroughs v. Hunt, 13 Ind. 178; Adkins v. Flemming, 29 Iowa, 122; Pollock v. Agner, 54 Kans. 618, 38 Pac. 781; Hutchings v. Stilwell, 18 B. Mon. 776; Martin v. Francis, 173 Ky. 529, 191 S. W. 259, Ann. Cas. 1918 E. 289; Stacey v. Foss, 19 Me. 335, 36 Am. Dec. 755; McDonough v. Webster, 68 Me. 530; Gilmore v. Woodcock, 69 Me. 118, 31 Am. Rep. 255, 70 Me. 494; Fisher v. Hildreth, 117 Mass. 558; Morgan v. Beaumont, 121 Mass. 7; Whitwell v. Carter, 4 Mich. 329; Wilkinson v. Tousley, 16 Minn. 299, 10 Am. Rep. 139; Pabst Brewing Co. v. Liston, 80 Minn. 473, 83 N. W. 448, 81 Am. St. Rep. 275; Weaver v. Harlan, 48 Mo. App. 319; White v. Gilleland, 93 Mo. App. 310; Deaver v. Bennett, 29 Neb. 812, 46 N. W. 161, 26 Am. St. Rep. 415; Perkins v. Eaton, 3 N. H. 152; Hoit v. Bodge, 6 N. H. 104, 25 Am. Dec. 451; Hensler v. Jennings, 62 N. J. L. 209, 41 Atl. 918; Stoddard v McAuliffe, 81 Hun, 524, affd., without opinion, 151 N. Y. 671, 46 N. E. 1151; Wood v. Wood's Exr., 3 Murph. 172; Forrest v. Hart, 3 Murph. 458; Dunn v. Drum-mond, 4 Okla. 461, 51 Pac. 656; Willis v. Hoover, 9 Or. 418; Conklin v. Conway, 18 Pa. St. 329; Dauler v. Hartley, 178 Pa. St. 23, 35 Atl. 857;

Davis v. Fleehman, 245 Pa. 224,91 Atl. 489; McGrath v. Kennedy, 15 R. I. 209, 2 Atl. 438; Bledsoe v. Thompson, 6 Rich. L. 44, 57 Am. Dec. 777; Guth-man v. Parker, 3 Head, 233; Lillard v. Mitchell (Tenn.), 37 S. W. 702; Lewy v. Crawford, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 293; Tarleton v. Baker, 18 Vt. 9, 44 Am. Dec. 358; West v. Holmes, 26 Vt. 530. See also Trenery v. Goudie, 106 Iowa, 693, 77 N. W. 467; Jones v. Cavanaugh, 149 Mass. 124, 21 N. E. 306. But in Sutphin v. Crozer, 32 N. J. L. 462, it was held that no action could be maintained by either party against the stakeholder to recover money illegally staked; and Bee California cases at the end of the preceding note.

75 Johnston v. Russell, 37 Cal. 670; Davis v. Holbrook, 1 La. Ann. 176; Hickerson v. Benson, 8 Mo. 8, 11, 40 Am. Dec. 115, 118; Connor v. Black, 132 Mo. 150, 154, 33 S. W. 783. In Missouri this doctrine has been enacted by statute. See Weaver v. Harlan, 48 Mo. App. 319; White v. Gilleland, 93 Mo. App. 310; Dooley v. Jackson, 104 Mo. App. 21, 78 S. W. 330.

76 Colson v. Meyers, 80 Ga. 499; s. c, sub nam., Myers v. Colson, 5 S. E. 504; Frybarger v. Simpson, 11 Ind. 59; Adkins v. Flemming, 29 Iowa, 122; Himmelman v. Pecaut, 133 Iowa, 503,110 N. W. 919; Goldberg v. Feiga, 170 Mass. 146, 48 N. E. 1073; Dooley v. Jackson, 104 Mo. App. 21, 78 S. W. 330; Riddle v. Perry, 19 Neb. 505, 27 N. W. 721; Bates v. Lancaster, 10 Humph. 134, 51 Am. Dec. 696.

77 See Hensler v. Jennings, 62 N. J. L.