
    Lansing against Lansing.
    Where a bet the3 poll’ was”1' evenf of°theÜee lection for gopartyr gave his fo/the^amount bfe^in so’ days' ■which was deposited with a stakeholder, and afterwards delivered to the wasalheid°etiiat agamst it, m the bands of the original payee, and wasVoid.71'0,56' ’ ing1 tigivente for
    error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The defendant in error brought an action against the plaintiff *n error’ before a justice, on a note made by the plaintiff in error, payable 30 days after date, to J. G. L. or order, and endorsed by him. The plaintiff in error and J. G. -£• made a bet of 8 dollars, on the 26th April last, after t^le <d°se °f the poll, as to the election of the governor, ancj made their notes to each other, for the amount of the _ 7 bet, which were deposited with one Smith. After the . event or the election was known, Smith, the holder, deli-both the notes to J. G. L. the winner. It apPeared that the note in question was endorsed after it became due; and that about a week after the election, the notes should be given up and considered as nothing; and , , . 6 ,,,, „ that a bet ox suppers should be substituted instead of ^Ct f°r tbe plaintiff for eight dollars, on which the justice gave judgment. the eight dollars. There was a trial by jury, and a ver-
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff below took the note, after it had become due, and subject, therefore, to every defence which existed against it, in the hands of the original payee. This case falls within the principle laid down in Bunn v. Piker, (4 Johns. Rep. 426.) that a bet involving an inquiry into the validity of the election of the governor, was void, on principles of policy. The, judgment below must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.  