[202]. 28 L. J., Q. B., 126. 1 E. & E. 456.
[203]. L.R., 4 Q.B., 214. See, too, Evans v. Pratt, 3 M. & G.
[204]. The point was not taken in this case that the agreement was in the nature of a wager and the plaintiff therefore entitled to revoke the stakeholder’s authority, but it will be observed that the defendant had paid over the money without receiving notice from plaintiff.
[205]. 14 M. & W., 193.
[206]. 28 L. J., Q. B.
[207]. 28 L. J., Exch., 1.
[208]. 11 Exch., 715.
[209]. L. R., 2 P. C. 280.
[210]. The laws with regard to wagers in N. S. Wales, if, indeed, they were in any way material to this case, seem to be a reproduction of 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109. Trimble v. Hill, 5 App. Ca., 342.
[211]. 15 D. R., 69.