
    James S. Hoit, Plaintiff in error, versus William Hodge.
    All wagers, upon matters in which the parties have no interest beyond what is created by the wagers themselves, are void contracts,
    This was a writ of error, brought to reverse a judgment of the court of common pleas.
    Hodge brought an action of assumpsit, for money had and received, against Hoit. Upon the trial, in the court of common pleas, it appeared, that Hodge, and one David Bunker, at Barnstead, on the 2d August, 18,30, made a bet of $5 each, upon a horse race, to be run at Barn-stead, on the 7th August, 1830. The money was deposited in the hands of Hoit. It was agreed that the horses should run until the wager was won, and that, if either Hodge or Bunker should refuse to let his horse run, he was to forfeit the $5, so by him deposited, to the other.
    The horses ran once on the 7th August, 1830, but the wager was won by neither party. Hodge then withdrew his horse, and refused to let him run again. But Bunker was ready, with his horse, to ran again.
    In September, 1830, Hodge demanded his five dollars of Hoit, who refused to comply with the demand, and on tiie 28th October, 1830, paid the §10, to Bunker.
    The court below instructed the jury, that, upon these facts, Hodge was entitled to recover, and the jury returned a verdict in his favor. Whereupon Hoit filed a bill of exceptions, and brought this writ of error.
    , B. Emerson, for the plaintiff in error.
    JV. Eastman, for the defendant.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

RichardsoN, C. J.

The wager, in this case, was upon a matter in which neither party had any interest beyond what was created by the wager itself; and if the wage? had been won, by Bunker, on the Ttli August, 1830, Hodge would have been entitled to recover of Hoit the money he deposited, if demanded at any time before it was paid over to Bunker. All wagers, upon matters, in which the parties have no interest, are void contracts. 3 N. H. Rep. 152, Perkins v. Eaton; 1 B. & A. 683; 3 Starkie’s Ev. 1655; 16 East, 150; 1 Carr. & Payne, 613.

That part of the contract, which stipulated, that if either should refuse to let his horse run, he should forfeit to the other the money deposited, was nothing more nor less than a wager upon the courage of the parties to have the bet, upon the horses, decided, and stands upon the same ground as the bet upon the horses.

The instruction given to the jury, in the court below, was correct, and the judgment must be affirmed.  