{
  "id": 8681036,
  "name": "LEWIS T. TEAGUE v. JOHN W. PERRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Teague v. Perry",
  "decision_date": "1870-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "39",
  "last_page": "42",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 N.C. 39"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "2 Dev., 303",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276902
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/13/0303-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Mur. 17",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mur.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Hay., 297",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hayw.",
      "case_ids": [
        6105074,
        11980036
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tenn/5/0508-01",
        "/nc/3/0297-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Dev. 372",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277129
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/13/0372-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Dev. 372",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277129
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/13/0372-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 407,
    "char_count": 6444,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.36,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36691907520477063
    },
    "sha256": "76633073cb6540653977fbb5a8c2327bdd00b33e9cae273ab9bad858910ff02d",
    "simhash": "1:d5afcbb3eeebf460",
    "word_count": 1162
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:28:35.890237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LEWIS T. TEAGUE v. JOHN W. PERRY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Peabsok, O. J.\nWe do not concur in the view of the case taken by His Honor.\n1. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the note was given to secure the payment of money won at cards, a judgment \u201cin invitum\u20191'1 was taken against L. T. Teague, before a Justice of the Peace in 1860, from which judgment he appealed, and Peggy Teague, the other plaintiff, became his surety. At Spring Term 1867, judgment was entered against both of them. This put an end to the controversy; and the parties are estopped by record, from now setting up any matter of which they might have taken benefit by way of defence to that action. \u201c Interest reipiiblicce ut sit finis IMwtm \u201d is a maxim in every system of law. In pleadings-by the course of the common law, Lord Ooke says, u good matter must be pleaded in due form, apt time and proper order.\u201d After judgment the question touching a gaming consideration, was res adjuMcata, and could not be again presented, except on writ of error.\n2. But the note was not given to secure the payment of money won at cards, it was given to secure the price for a judgment on one Emerson. It is true that this judgment had been won at cards, but it had passed to, and became the property of one Dorsett, just as if a horse had been won instead of the judgment. It is settled that money,, or a horse, or a judgment, won at cards and actually paid and delivered, cannot be recovered back, the game being fairly played. Hudspeth v. Wilson, 2 Dev., 372; Warden v. Plummer, 4 Jon. 524, takes this as settled, and is put on the ground that the party was cheated in the play.\n3. Mr. Phillips properly yielded these points, and rested his case on the word \u201c judgment \u201d in the statute, Eev. Code, ch. 51, sec. 2: .\u201cAll contracts, judgments, conveyances and assurances for and on account of any money, or property, or thing in action, so wagered, bet or staked, shall be void;\u201d insisting that the effect of this provision is to make void cmvy judgment rendered on a gaming consideration, and to take it out of the maxim and rule referred to above in reference to res adjudicata.\nIt will be observed that the judgment taken by Perry against the plaintiffs, was not on a note given for a gaming' consideration, but for the price of a judgment; so the point \u2022does not hit our case. But suppose it does: a construction of the statute by which to give to the introduction, of the word \u201cjudgments \u201d in connection with the words \u201ccontracts, conveyances, and assurances,\u201d the effect of making an exception to a settled rule of law, is inadmissible. Had it been the intention to make this exception, and allow solemn judgments of the Courts to he avoided by matter which could have been relied on as a defence to the action, plain and direct words were called for, and would have been used; especially as full operation can be given to the word, by treating it as used in the sense of a judgment confessed, or allowed by consent, in order to secure the payment of money won at cards; like a mortgage, deed of trust or other \u25a0 assurance given for that purpose. The use of the word \u201cjudgment \u201d in the sense of a security gwen for money, in the next preceding chapter, ch. 50, sec. 1, in connection with the same words, furnishes a conclusive analogy: \u201cEvery gift and conveyance of land, goods, &c., and every bond, suit, judgment and execution made- with intent to defraud creditors shall be void,\u201d &c. Here, \u201cjudgment\u201d is evidently used in the sense of a judgment confessed, with intent to defraud creditors. There, it is used in the sense of a judgment confessed with intent to secure money won at cards. There is no reason to infer that the word was used in either statute for the purpose of abrogating a well settled and highly beneficial principle of law, by which an end is put to litigation.\nThere is error.\nPee Cuexam. Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Peabsok, O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Manmng, for the appellant.",
      "Phillips & Merrimon, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LEWIS T. TEAGUE v. JOHN W. PERRY.\nA note, given subsequently, in purchase of a Magistrate\u2019s judgment which had been won at cards by the payee from the maker, is not void under the statute against gaming.\nThe statute (Eev. Code, e. 51, sec. 2,) which avoids all judgments, &c.,for and on account of any money, or property, or thing in action wagered, bet, &c., does not include judgments taken in inviium, but only such as are confessed, or taken by consent.\n(.Hudspeth v. Wilson, 2 Dev. 372, and Warden v. Plummer, 4 Jon. 524, cited and approved.)\nAction, for an injunction to stay proceedings, tried by Tourgee, J., at Pali Term 1869, of Ohatham Court.\nThe facts were, that in 1860 the defendant, as endorsee of one Dorsett, hadrecovered judgment before a Magistrate upon a certain note given by the plaintiff to Dorsett; that the plaintiff had appealed from that judgment to the Superior Court of Chatham, and that at Spring Term 1867, no pleas having been enteredin the Superior Court, judgment was again given against the plaintiff and one Peggy Teague, his surety for the appeal, and that execution had been taken out, and levied, &c.; also that the note in question had been given by the plaintiff to Dorsett in payment for a magistrate\u2019s judgment once in the- hands of the plaintiff as constable, which some days before, had been won at cards of him by Dorsett.\nHis Honor haying ordered the injunction to be perpetuated, the defendant appealed.\nManmng, for the appellant.\n1. The judgment was the thing won, and when dehvered it could not have been recovered by Teague, therefore the note he gave in purchase of it, is binding, and not affected by the statute against gam\u00fang. Hudspeth v. Wilson, 2 Dev., 372.\n2. There is no equity here for the plaintiff; his defence against the case* at law, was not equitable, nor was he deprived of that which he had, by fraud, accident or surprise.\n3. The yfoxd judgments,in the statute against gaming, does not include judgments taken in suits regularly constituted, and in due course of the Court.\nHe cited also Stotvell v. Chithrie, 2 Hay., 297 5 Hodges v. Pitmam, 2 Oar. Law Bep., 276; Wood v. Wood, 3 Mur. 17 : Forest v. Han't, lb. 458; Turner v. Peacock, 2 Dev., 303; Webb v. Fulchi/re, 3 Ire., 485; Jones v. Jones, N. C. Term 110.\nPhillips & Merrimon, contra.\nThe \u2019word judgments was inserted in the statute against gaming, in 1856, and therefore previous decisions do not affect our position. The policy is that the infection of gaming pursues the transaction and all substitutes for it, to the last moment at which it is necessary to resort to the law for aid."
  },
  "file_name": "0039-01",
  "first_page_order": 63,
  "last_page_order": 66
}