Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 372.040 (2026)

Suit by third person where loser or creditor does not sue

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If the loser or his creditor does not, within six (6) months after its payment or delivery to the winner, sue for the money or thing lost, and prosecute the suit to recovery with due diligence, any other person may sue the winner, and recover treble the value of the money or thing lost, if suit is brought within five (5) years from the delivery or payment. Effective: October 1, 1942 History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 1958.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: Kindt v. Murphy, 227 S.W.2d 895 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kindt v. Murphy, 227 S.W.2d 895 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “The argument of the petitioners is that the suit brought to recover alleged gambling losses under KRS 372.040 is a penal action; hence, the defendants may not, by compulsory process, be compelled to testify against themselves.”

Commonwealth of Kentucky Ex Rel. J. Michael Brown, Sec'y of the Governor's Exec. Cabinet v. Stars Interactive Holdings (Iom) Ltd., F/K/A Amaya Grp. Holdings (Iom) Ltd. (Ky. 2020). · cites it 20× “020 and KRS 372.040. KRS 372.020 provides a losing gambler with a first-party cause of action to recover any losses suffered.”

Vets. Serv. Club v. Sweeney, 252 S.W.2d 25 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952). “The action covers alleged gambling losses of appellee’s wife for the period of time from October 3, 1947, to October 18, 1948, inclusive, and is based upon KRS 372.040, which is in this language: “If the loser or his creditor does not, within, six months after its payment or…”

Akers v. Fuller, 228 S.W.2d 29 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “The suit wa3 brought under KRS 372.040. The defendant C. H. Akers was subpoenaed to appear before a notary public and give his testimony as if on cross-examination.”

Cayce (W.D. Ky. 2026). · cites it 9× “§ 372.040. This eyebrow-raising claim about the 21st-century phenomenon of ubiquitous online gaming apps boasts a longer pedigree than might be expected.”

Fuqua (W.D. Ky. 2026). · cites it 9× “§ 372.040. This eyebrow-raising claim about the 21st-century phenomenon of ubiquitous online gaming apps boasts a longer pedigree than might be expected.”

Jenkins (W.D. Ky. 2026). · cites it 9× “§ 372.040. This eyebrow-raising claim about the 21st-century phenomenon of ubiquitous online gaming apps boasts a longer pedigree than might be expected.”

Gunkel (W.D. Ky. 2026). · cites it 9× “§ 372.040. This eyebrow-raising claim about the 21st-century phenomenon of ubiquitous online gaming apps boasts a longer pedigree than might be expected.”

Kentucky Gambling Recovery LLC v. Kalshi Inc., et al. (E.D. Ky. 2026). · cites it 5× “First, whether prediction markets are illegal under Kentucky’s gambling statutes; and second, if such event contracts are illegal under Kentucky’s statutes, whether the plaintiff can recover under the Commonwealth’s “Statute of Anne,” codified at Ky. Rev. Stat. § 372.040.…”

Matthew Workman v. Kentucky Downs, LLC (Ky. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “Workman sought to recover under the Act, or KRS 372.040. The Simpson Circuit Court (the “Simpson Court”) entered a final order in this case on November 23, 2021.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.