De Wolf V. Johnson, 1825. self cannot set up; and which, in another aspect, he has not set up; but, on the contrary, under the state of the pleadings, must be supposed to have refused to set up, or have abandoned. These views are independent of the effect of notice, or of the peculiar circumstances of the notice in this case. It is true, the Johnsons deny the notice prior to the deed of trust. But previous notice is immaterial, since the notice with which the law affects them, is that which the deed to Barry, under which they claim, communicates to him as assignee. In the actual case, the notice is peculiarly strong and pointed, since the only description of the lands in question, in the deed to Barry, is contained in a reference for description to the mortgage to De Wolf, and the purpose is explicitly declared to give priority to that mortgage. Technically and morally, therefore, they required no more than what should remain after satisfying De Wolf. But had they purchased from Prentiss, in the most absolute and general manner, and altogether without notice actual or constructive, they still could have acquired no more than the equity of redemption, and that would not have transferred to them the right of availing themselves of the plea of usury. We have examined the cases quoted to this point, and are satisfied with their application and correctness. It would, indeed, be astonishing, were it otherwise, for the contrary rule would hold out no relief to the borrower; it would be only transferring his money from the pocket of the lender to the pocket of the holder of the equity 1825. of redemption. Upon the whole, we are of opinion, that the decree must be reversed, and the cause sent back to have a decree of foreclosure entered, and carried into effect, according to the exigencies of the case. Brent V. Davis [LOTTERY.] BRENT and others v. DAVIS. The scheme of a lottery contained a stationary prize for the first drawn number on each of twelve days, during which the drawing was to continue, and the first drawn number on the tenth day was to be entitled to 30,000 dollars, payable in part by three hundred tickets, from Nos. 501 to 800, inclusive. No. 623, one of the 300 tickets to be given in part payment of the said prize, was drawn first on that day, and decided to be entitled to the prize of 30,000 dollars. After the drawing for the day was concluded, the managers reversed this decision, and awarded the prize to No. 4,760, which was drawn next to No. 623, and had drawn a prize of twentyfive dollars, which they decreed to No. 623. In drawing the same lottery, it was discovered on the last day, that the wheel of blanks and prizes contained one blank less than ought to have been put into it; and to remedy this mistake an additional blank was thrown in. In an action brought by the managers against a person who had purchased the whole lottery, for the purchase money, it was held, that these irregularities did not vitiate the drawing of the lottery, the conduct of the managers having been bona fide, and the affirmance of their acts not furnishing any inducement to the repetition of the same mistake, nor any motive for misconduct of any description. Quare, Whether the ticket No. 623, or No. 4,760, was entitled to the prize of 30,000 dollars? 1825. Brent V. Davis. ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. This cause was argued by Mr. Key, for the March 14th. plaintiffs, and by Mr. Swann and Mr. Jones, for the defendant. March 17th. Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. The defendant was the purchaser of the first class of a lottery to be drawn in the city of Washington, conformably to a scheme agreed on between the plaintiffs, who had been appointed managers, and himself; and the declaration is on the penalty of the bond given for the sum of 10,000 dollars, conditioned for the performance of articles entered into between them, one of which was, that he should pay the said sum of 10,000 dollars to the plaintiffs within sixty days after the lottery should be completed. The defendant prayed oyer of the bond, and of the condition; after which the following entry is made: "Non damnificatus pleaded, and issue, with leave to give the special matter in evidence on both sides." A jury was impanelled, who found a special verdict, which states at large the by-law of the corporation authorizing the lottery, the appointment of the managers, their sale of the first class to Davis, the scheme of the lottery, and the agreement entered into by him with them. The verdict then states, that the managers, and the said Davis, proceeded to draw the said lottery, in the course of which, certain irregula- 1825. rities took place, which are detailed at large; ard the whole progress of the lottery to its conclusion is stated. The scheme contains a stationary prize for the first drawn number on each of twelve days, during which the drawing was to continue; which were not put into the numerical wheel. The first drawn number on the 10th day was to be entitled to 30,000 dollars, payable in part by three hundred tickets, from numbers 501 to 800 inclusive. No. 623, one of the three hundred tickets to be given in part payment of the said prize, was drawn first on that day, which was immediately proclaimed by the managers, and the prize awarded to it, by making the usual entry in a book kept for that purpose. After the drawing for that day was concluded, the managers reconsidered their judgment, awarding the prize of 30,000 dollars to No. 623, and reversed it. They then awarded the prize to No. 4,760, which was drawn next to 623, and had drawn a prize of twenty-five dollars, which prize they decreed to No. 623; and the original entries made in the book for the registration of prizes, were transposed so as to conform to this last determination. On the last day, it was discovered, that the wheel of blanks and prizes contained one blank less than ought to have been put into it; and to remedy this mistake, the managers, and the said Davis, agreed to throw in an additional blank. Brent ▼. Davis. 1825. Brent V. Davis. The verdict appears to have been intended not orly for this cause, but for another suit also, vhich was brought for the benefit of the proprietors of a ticket which had drawn a prize of 10,000 dollars, by the Corporation of Washington against one of the managers, on a bond given for the performance of his duty. It concludes with the following findings: “If, upon the whole matter, the law be for the plaintiffs, so as to entitle the plaintiffs to demand and have of the defendant in this action, the sum of 10,000 dollars, in and by the agreement recited in the condition of the bond given by the said Gideon Davis to the said managers aforesaid, sixty days after the drawing of the said lottery is completed, then we find for the plaintiffs the debt in the declaration mentioned, and one cent damages, to be discharged by the payment of 10,000 dollars. "And if the proprietors of the said prize tickets, or the said proprietors of the said ticket No. 1,037, be entitled to demand and have the amount of the several prizes drawn against their respective tickets in the course of the drawings as aforesaid, after making the deduction of fifteen per cent. according to the said scheme, and if the proprietors of the said ticket No. 1,037, be entitled to demand and receive payment of the said prize of 10,000 dollars, with such deduction as aforesaid against the defendant in this action, then we find for the plaintiffs the farther sum of 8,500 dollars, to the use of the said purchasers and proprietors of the said ticket No. 1,037, in equal shares and proportions aforesaid. And if, |