CH. 34. form of declaring by such informer, of the verdict, and judg Art. 4. ment.

Woodson & al. v. Barrett & M. 80, 89.

& al. 2 Hen.

The Acts of Virginia. A. D. 1748, c. 25, and Oct. 1779, c. 42.

ART. 4. Law against gaming in Virginia, and gaming debts. In this case it was decided, a gaming bond was void in the hands of an assignee for valuable consideration, and without notice; that a judgment thereon was also void, as was likewise a levy by execution thereon in the form of an elegit and appraisal by jury, and thereto there ought to be a perpetual injunction. The case was thus, Woodson, at gaming at cards in 1783, lost to one Miller £1400 in officers' certificates, and he about the same time lost to one Jouitt about the same sum. Miller requested Woodson to pay Jouitt that sum, and Woodson gave his bond to Jouitt for that sum; Jouitt at the time knowing it was for a gaming debt. This bond was afterwards. assigned to Barrett & Co. for a valuable consideration, and without notice that it was for gaming. The assignees got judgment at law in a county court against Woodson, and a writ of elegit issued against his lands &c.; half of them were levied on by the jury, valuation &c. The assignees sued the sheriff for a defect in the levy in the Richmond District Court, and recovered, to all which an injunction was issued. By a bill for it the cause was carried into the then High Court of Chancery, the judge in which decided the bond was valid &c. Thereon Woodson & al. appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals, which decided the bond was by the statutes of Virginia absolutely void ab initio, and so void in the hands of the assignees, and that the judgment and all done thereon was void.

The acts of 1748 and 1779, made all promises, agreements, notes, bills, bonds, and other contracts, judgments, mortgages, or other securities or conveyances whatsoever, where the whole or any part of the consideration shall be for money or other valuable thing whatsoever won at gaming, or for the repayment of money lent to game with, utterly void, frustrate,. and of no effect, to all intents and purposes whatsoever. Judge Tucker observed, that the word contracts in the above act is not in the 9 Anne; otherwise they are like that act, and the act above of Massachusetts which omits that word, on account of which omission a distinction was taken in Robinson v. Bland, which see Ch. 1, a. 3, s. 2; Ch. 34, a. 3, s. 16. In Woodson v. Barrett were also cited Lowe v. Walker, Bower v. Brampton, which are above cited; also Bones v. Botheited, Ch. 145, s. 14, were also cited from Washington's Reports, several cases, as Ambler v. Wyld, 2 Wash. 36; Buckner v. Smith, 1 Wash. 294; Hoomes v. Smork, 1 Wash. 389; Cochran v. Street, 1 Wash. 79; Norton v. Rose, 2 Wash. 233; Peckett v. Morris, 2 Wash. 255; shewing such a bond

void in the hands of such assignees, unless the obligor before the assignment induce the assignee to take the bond by promising to pay him the money; also shewing, that if he pay a valuable consideration &c. he may recover back his money in an action of assumpsit; and is not this his only proper action, for when the bond is absolutely void ab initio, how can the obligor make it valid by such an after promise?

СH. 34.

Art. 4.

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME..