
    James Udall versus Chandler Metcalf.
    W t'B-v ti Lo. j m a, lottery, rot authorised by any law of this state, or of the i i» a'd Fíale-, were' sent by a person residing in another state, to an agent ¡t fuk rnite, to sell, it was held, that as the sale of such tickets in this 'tare A -si ityful, no action could be maintained, by the person who seat 'he hekety against the agent, to recover the money the latter might have o' v.Ke.1 bv a sale of the tickets.
    Ar.-cwnn: upon an account annexed to the writ as follows i — M
    hi.anther bfuíc.dí, to James Udall, Dr.
    :brds;y C, 1ST', To On tickets in the second c.as-s d’the, W. It. Lh lottery, í t $1,5J each* $45,00
    
      ■ U Ul??, To 100 tickets in ditto, 150,00
    105,00
    
      
      
    
    Balance, S96,3b,
    There was also a count for money liad and received.
    The cause was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts.
    The said lottery was duly granted by the legislature of Vermont, but was never allowed by any act of the legislature of this state, or of the United States. The defendant, who resided in Hanover, in this county, agreed with the plaiuthT to receive from him tickets at ⅜1,50 each, to sell, the ordinary retail price being ⅜2, and to return all that remained unsold on the day of the drawing of the lottery, which was the 20th June, 1827. The plaintiff resided in Vermont, and in pursuance of said agreement, scut the tickets mentioned in the account to the defendant, at Hanover, who there sold all that he did not return.
    
      W. Smith, for the defendant,
    relied upon the cases Ro-by v. West, 4 N, II. Rep. 285, and Hunt v. Knickerbocker, ⅛ Johns, 327.
    
      E. R. Olcoil, for the plaintiff,
    contended, that the contract was made in Vermont, and that its validity, construction and effect were to be settled by the laws of that state. And if the tickets were sold there to the defendant, even if the plaintiff knew that they were to be again sold in this state, that circumstance would not affect the contract. As to this, the case of Hahnon v. Johnson, Cowpep, 341, is directly in point.
   By the Court.

The tickets were sent by the plaintiff to the defendant in this state, to be sold, and all the tickets which the defendant sold were sold in this slate. The delbaJ.-iM was ihe agent of the plaintiff to sell the tickets, and what the agent did,'shows that the t.ekeis ../ere sent here with a view to be .sold in violation ''ro,ir lav s. 8 Pick. 78, Williams v. Woodman

No action can be sustained in the courts of this state in favour of the plaintiff, to recover the money which the defendant received in such a transaction. Both parties were engaged in violating* the laws, and the law leaves them to adjust the concern between them as they may. 2 Gallison, 500, Fales v. Mayberry,

It is said that the tickets were sold to the defendant in Vermont, venere the sale was lawful, Bui we see no ground on which it can be held, as the case is slated, that there was a sale to the defendant any where. He was a mere agent to sell and account for what he sold at a certain price.

Judgment for the defendant.  