
    Sherwood Corley v. Wiley Berry.
    Columbia,
    May, 1830,
    A contract to forfeit a deposit, in. the event of refusing to run a horse-race, foY a stipulated wager exceeding £10, is void; and an action cannot be maintained against the stake-holder, for the sum deposited, by the parly to Whom it was to be fon'éited. The wager being illegal, and void, under the St. "J Ann. o. 14. tin fo. eit. which is a mere incident, is void also. — aide P L. App. 'JO. Haslcet ads. Wootan, 1N.& M. 180. and Atchison ». Gee, 4 M'C. 211.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Edgefield, Spring Term, ' 1830.
    The plaintiff and oneRansom Holloway wagered $200, upon a horse-race, to be run on a stipulated day ; and deposited with the defendant, $<15, each, to be forfeited to the other party, if either refused to run the race at the time appointed. Holloway did refuse, and the plaintiff demanded the deposit of the defendant, who refused to deliver the sutu deposited by Holloway. The plaiutiff -thereupon brought suit by summary process for the amount.
    The presiding Judge was of opinion, that the contract was illegal, and void, and made a decree for the defendant.
    The plaintiff' now moved to reverse the decree; as contrary to law.
    Bauskett, for the motion.
    Wardlaw, contra.
    
   Johnson, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court,

We concur with the presiding Judge, that the plaintiff Was Hot intitled to recover. Under the St. 9 Ann. c. 14. 1. Brev. Dig. 384. and P. L. App. 20, the contract to 'wager $200, on the horse-race, was void. The plaintiff, if he had won, could not have recovered it iii an action at law. Hasket ads. Wootan, 1 N. & M. 180. If the defendant had paid it, he might have recovered it back in an action'on the statute. Atchison v. Gee, 4 M‘C. 211. The deposit of $45, by way of forfeiture, was an jncjf],,nt t0 tJle contract to wager on the race. The principal being illegal, and void, the incident is void also.

Colcock, J. and Evans, J. concurred.

Motion refused.  