Harper v. Strong, (1938)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 14
Judges: PER CURIAM.
Attorneys: Eldridge Hart, for Appellant;
Hope Strong, for Appellee.
Filed: Nov. 15, 1938
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This appeal is from a final decree on bill and answer, dismissing the bill of complaint. R. Francis Harper filed his bill of complaint against Hope Strong, praying that the court decree that the sum of $150.00, alleged to be held by the defendant, is held by him in trust for the use and benefit of the plaintiff, and that the trust be enforced by the court. The bill of complaint is predicated upon the following order signed by N. Muzante: "May 10, 1935. "Mr. Hope Strong: "Please pay Francis Harpe
Summary: This appeal is from a final decree on bill and answer, dismissing the bill of complaint. R. Francis Harper filed his bill of complaint against Hope Strong, praying that the court decree that the sum of $150.00, alleged to be held by the defendant, is held by him in trust for the use and benefit of the plaintiff, and that the trust be enforced by the court. The bill of complaint is predicated upon the following order signed by N. Muzante: "May 10, 1935. "Mr. Hope Strong: "Please pay Francis Harper..
More
It is quite true that one may not recover a judgment for a debt created, by participating in gambling, but I apprehend that there are honest gamblers who may wish to pay their obligations as far as it is possible for them to do so. I also think that a gambler may voluntarily arrange to pay his gambling debts and that if he delivers money to a third party (though that third party may be a lawyer) with which to settle his gambling debts by compromise it is the duty of the person so receiving such money to use it for the purpose for which it was placed in his hands. The allegations of the answer are sufficient to show that a compromise settlement agreement was reached between the principal, which if carried out would leave fifty dollars in the hands of Mr. Strong as a fee for his services. According to the allegations of the answer the agreement and delivery of the money was for the settlement and not for the repudiation of the debt — I think judgment on the pleadings, should have been for the complainant.
Source: CourtListener
