Watts v. Malatesta
Court of Appeals of New York
186 N.E. 210 (N.Y. 1933)
Watts (plaintiff), a casual gambler, placed a number of bets on horseracing with Malatesta (defendant), a professional bookmaker. Watts won approximately $250,000 and lost approximately $150,000 on these bets. However, a New York statute had banned organized betting and gambling. Watts brought suit against Malatesta to recover his losses. Malatesta counterclaimed to recover the difference between the winnings that he had paid Watts and the amount that Watts had lost. The trial court found in favor of Malatesta. The appellate court reversed, awarding Watts the amount he lost and paid to Malatesta. Malatesta appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Crouch, J.)
Dissent (Crane, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.