See Nehme, 632 F.3d at 536–37 (recognizing the potential of a defensive claim by the patron against the casino for failure to reduce the line of credit upon request). Wynn's reliance on Weisbrod v. Fremont Hotel, Inc., 74 Nev. 227, 326 P.2d 1104 (1958) is also misplaced. In that case, the Nevada Supreme Court considered a patron's claim that a casino had improperly refused to pay him $12,500 in keno winnings.

The language of the statute is clear to the effect that any instruments or conveyances made to cover gambling losses or to advance money for betting are void and not merely voidable. The same rule applies whether the claim is asserted by a gambling establishment, Craig v. Harrah, 66 Nev. 1, 201 P.2d 1081 (1949), or against one, Weisbrod v. Fremont Hotel, Inc., 74 Nev. 227, 326 P.2d 1104 (1958). The taint of a gambling transaction also applies to a check written to cover a gambling loss.

; but it does not enable the licensee to recover a gambling debt incurred in the licensed premises ( Id.). On the other hand a patron who has a winning ticket on a Keno game cannot collect it through the courts ( Weisbrod v. Fremont Hotel, Inc., 74 Nev. 227 [ 326 P.2d 1104]). California is so definitely committed to the doctrine that public policy concerning gambling is a matter for the legislature rather than the courts, that no injunction will issue against the conducting of an unlicensed gambling establishment except as prescribed by statute.

There the court held that section 1 of the Statute of Anne, which denies a remedy for collection of a gambling debt, is a part of the common law of Nevada, but that section 2, which permitted the loser to recover his losses from the gambling house, was severable, no doubt because to permit the loser to recover would defeat the objective of the statutes which license the gambling industry upon which so much of the state's economy depends. Again, in Weisbrod v. Fremont Hotel, Inc., 1958, 74 Nev. 227, 326 P.2d 1104, the Nevada court applied the same policy. In an action brought by a player to collect his winnings from the casino the court stated, "If money won at gambling is not recoverable through resort to the courts it is not because of who has won it but because of the nature of the transaction itself."

The Plaintiff and Defendant have each set forth a legal theory under which they may prevail. FNB's argument begins with the general principle that a negotiable instrument which is transferred in payment of a gambling debt is void and unenforceable.Sandler v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 622, 614 P.2d 10 (1980); Sea Air Support, Inc. v. Herrmann, 96 Nev. 574, 613 P.2d 413 (1980); Corbin v. O'Keefe, 87 Nev. 189, 484 P.2d 565 (1971) (per curiam); Wolpert v. Knight, 74 Nev. 322, 330 P.2d 1023 (1958); Weisbrod v. Fremont Hotel Inc., 74 Nev. 227, 326 P.2d 1104 (1958); West Indies, Inc. v. First National Bank of Nevada, 67 Nev. 13, 214 P.2d 144 (1950); Craig v. Harrah, 66 Nev. 1, 201 P.2d 1081 (1949); Menardi v. Wacker, 32 Nev. 169, 105 P. 287 (1909); Burke Co. v. Buck, 31 Nev. 74, 99 P. 1078 (1909); Evans v. Cook, 11 Nev. 69 (1876); Scott v. Courtney, 7 Nev. 419 (1872). The Court need not address the choice of law question since the parties have conceded that the relevant law in both Nevada and Oklahoma is substantially the same.

The Corporate Defendants argue that this administrative remedy is the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff under Nevada law. They argue that since Nevada courts do not enforce gaming debts, Sea Air Support, Inc. v. Herrmann, Nev., 613 P.2d 413 (1980); Corbin v. O'Keefe, 87 Nev. 189, 484 P.2d 565 (1971); Weisbrod v. Fremont Hotel, Inc., 74 Nev. 227, 326 P.2d 1104 (1958); West Indies v. First Nat'l Bank, 67 Nev. 13, 214 P.2d 144 (1950), Nevada courts would not recognize a cause of action involving gaming losses where there has been an allegation of cheating. This issue of whether there is a judicial remedy where a player claims he was cheated by a licensee has been resolved by the Ninth Circuit in Berman v. Riverside Casino Corp., 323 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1963).

Conversely, under Nevada law a casino is under no legal obligation to redeem chips issued to its customers or to pay wagers lost to its customers. Weisbrod v. Fremont Hotel, 74 Nev. 227, 326 P.2d 1104 (1958); Corbin v. O'Keefe, 87 Nev. 189, 484 P.2d 565 (1971); Berman v. Riverside Casino Corp., 323 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1963). Respondent agrees with petitioner that gambling debts are unenforceable under Nevada law.

Similarly, we distinguish this case from the Nevada cases cited by the Hamilton court, which held that the Statute of Anne remained in force despite the legality of gambling in Nevada. Like Hamilton, those cases dealt with the types of contracts expressly invalidated by the Statute of Anne, and thus it was held that the Statute prevented a gambling establishment from suing a customer to recover losses, West Indies, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank of Nev., 67 Nev. 13, 214 P.2d 144 (1950), a customer from suing a gambling establishment to recover winnings, Weisbrod v. Fremont Hotel, Inc., 74 Nev. 227, 326 P.2d 1104 (1958), and a creditor from recovering funds loaned to another for the purpose of gambling, Wolpert v. Knight, 74 Nev. 322, 330 P.2d 1023 (1958). Once again, the Pearsall-Alexander agreement does not fall into any of these categories and, thus, these cases are inapposite.

On February 17, 1984, following the presentation of Mandarino's case-in-chief, M R moved the district court pursuant to NRCP 41(b) to dismiss the claim for conversion. M R argued that under Nevada law "any money won at a gaming table is not recoverable in a civil action." See e.g., Weisbrod v. Fremont Hotel, 74 Nev. 227, 326 P.2d 1104 (1958) (an action will not lie for collection of money won in gambling, even when patron seeks such recovery from proprietors of gaming establishment). The district court granted M R's motion, but, apparently, it based its decision on the fact that the court had previously granted Mandarino's motion for partial summary judgment on the conversion claim and, therefore, the district court determined that the claim previously had "been disposed of in its entirety."

We can perceive of no logical basis for distinguishing between loans made to private individuals to engage in lawful wagering and loans made to casinos to engage in the same activities, where the ultimate purpose of the loans in both instances is to divide the benefits of any profits accrued from the wagering.See generally Weisbrod v. Fremont Hotel, 74 Nev. 227, 326 P.2d 1104 (1958) (court refuses to distinguish between gaming patrons and gaming casinos for purposes of common law prohibition against gaming debts). To the extent that our holdings in Johnston and the present case are in conflict with the language used in Statute of 9 Anne, supra, we hereby decline to follow that portion of the statute.