BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Edward Bruce, Writer to the Signet, v Walter Ross, Writer to the Signet. [1787] Mor 9523 (26 January 1787)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1787/Mor2309523-067.html Cite as:
[1787] Mor 9523
Sponsiones ludicræ. - Game Debt. - Premium for procuring a Wife. - Private Lotteries.
Edward Bruce, Writer to the Signet, v. Walter Ross, Writer to the Signet
Date: 26 January 1787 Case No. No 67.
A wager respecting the election of a Member of Parliament, found not actionable. Affirmed on appeal.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr Bruce and Mr Ross laid a bet of L. 50, respecting the election of a Member of Parliament for the Eastern District of Fife Boroughs, the latter being the agent of one of the candidates. The former thinking he had gained the wager, demanded the money; and, upon the latter refusing payment, brought an action against him.
The pursuer pleaded, A wager is a bargain neither immoral in itself, nor reprobated by any statute. Gaming with cards or dice for money is, at least, of as hurtful consequence as wagering; but that it is not contrary to law, is evident from the act 1621, cap. 14. which, without prohibiting, imposes only certain restraints on that mode of gaming. Those restraints, however, do not affect wagers, the lawfulness of which is evinced by Sir George M'Kenzie's Observations on the same statute. This contract, therefore, is a legal ground of action; and so, in a case 9th February 1676, No 52. p. 9505. reported by Dirleton, the Court found.
The defender stated nothing with respect to the competency of the action; his argument being confined to the question of fact, Whether the wager was lost or won by him. But
The cause being reported by the Lord Ordinary, the Court seemed to be unanimous in the opinion, that action Ought not to be sustained. The Judges, in general, regarded a wager as in no case a legal ground of action; while some, who thought differently, were, nevertheless, disposed to deny action in this particular case, from the idea, that political operations were a peculiarly improper subject of wagering.
On this ground, therefore; for, on the matter of fact, the opinion of the Court appeared to be in favour of the pursuer,
“The Lords dismissed the action, and assoilzied the defender.”
A reclaiming petition against this judgment was refused without answers.
Reporter, Lord Ankerville.Act. Wight.Alt. Ipse.Clerk, Orme.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 34. Fac. Col. No 301. p. 465.
*** This case was appealed.—The House of Lords, 14th April 1788, “Ordered and Adjudged, that the appeal be dismissed, and the interlocutors complained of be affirmed.”
