Collatz v. Fox Wis. Amusement Corp.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtFOWLER
Citation300 N.W. 162,239 Wis. 156
PartiesCOLLATZ v. FOX WISCONSIN AMUSEMENT CORPORATION.
Decision Date02 December 1941

239 Wis. 156
300 N.W. 162

COLLATZ
v.
FOX WISCONSIN AMUSEMENT CORPORATION.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 7, 1941.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, 1941.


Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; Charles L. Aarons, Judge.

Reversed.

[300 N.W. 163]

Action by Gustav Collatz against the Fox Wisconsin Amusement Corporation to recover the value of a half interest in an automobile, commenced July 26, 1940. From a judgment for the plaintiff entered October 7, 1940, the defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Lines, Spooner & Quarles, of Milwaukee, for appellant.

W. B. Ferebee, of Milwaukee, for respondent.


FOWLER, Justice.

The plaintiff sues to recover from the defendant the value of a half interest in an automobile which the defendant offered as a prize in a contest participated in by the plaintiff the entire interest in which the defendant awarded to a person other than the plaintiff. Trial was had to the court and findings made by the circuit judge. There is no bill of exceptions, so the case is before us for determination upon the findings, and such allegations of the complaint as are not denied by the answer. From the allegations of the complaint not denied, it appears that the defendant publicly advertised that the fifteen persons who during a specified week most nearly guessed the number of beans in a jar publicly displayed during said week would be eligible to engage in a “Quiz Contest” held at defendant's theatre at a time specified “until all but one (1) of their number should be eliminated” and that the winner in the contest would be awarded a new Chevrolet automobile; that the plaintiff was one of the fifteen who most nearly guessed the number of beans in the jar; that he duly notified the defendant that he would enter said contest and was accepted by the defendant as a contestant therein, and participated in the contest. The trial judge found that the plaintiff was one of nine participants in the contest. That the contestants drew numbers by lot and seated themselves on the stage of the theatre in the order they were to be quizzed and the plaintiff drew the first position; that the contestants were each asked a question in the order determined by the draw; that three contestants failed to answer correctly the first question put to them and thereby eliminated themselves; that two contestants failed to answer the second question put to them and thereby eliminated themselves; that two contestants failed to answer...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Simon v. Taylor, No. CIV 12-0096 JB/WDS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • September 26, 2013
    ...246 N.Y.S.2d 889 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964); Phillips v. Pantages Theatre Co., 300 P. 1048 (Wash. 1931); Collatz v. Fox Wisc. Amusement Corp., 300 N.W. 162 (Wis. 1941)). According to the Plaintiffs, "[w]hen American courts have not permitted a recovery . . . , it was done on the basis of causati......
  • Wright v. St. Mary's Medical Center of Evansville, No. EV 97-45-C Y/H.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • June 9, 1999
    ...where contest promoters denied plaintiff the opportunity to appear in final round of contest); Collatz v. Fox Wisc. Amusement Corp., 239 Wis. 156, 300 N.W. 162 (1941) (reversing lower court's award to plaintiff of half the value of prize when prize wrongfully awarded to other contestant bec......
  • Cent. Brown Cnty. Water Auth. v. Consoer, Case No. 09-C-0131
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • February 11, 2013
    ...result of action or inaction by [the defendant] or that he might sustain some damage in the future"); Collatz v. Fox Wis. Amusement Corp., 239 Wis. 156, 157-58, 300 N.W. 162, 163-64 (Wis. 1941) (holding contract claim failed because plaintiff could not show he suffered any damages even if t......
  • Mange v. Unicorn Press
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 7, 1955
    ...recovery, e. g. Phillips v. Pantages Theater Co., 1931, 163 Wash. 303, 300 P. 1048; Collatz v. Fox Wisconsin Amusement Corp., 1941, 239 Wis. 156, 300 N.W. 162, there appears to be a liberal trend towards allowing the jury to determine the value of the chance of which plaintiff was deprived.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Simon v. Taylor, No. CIV 12-0096 JB/WDS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • September 26, 2013
    ...246 N.Y.S.2d 889 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964); Phillips v. Pantages Theatre Co., 300 P. 1048 (Wash. 1931); Collatz v. Fox Wisc. Amusement Corp., 300 N.W. 162 (Wis. 1941)). According to the Plaintiffs, "[w]hen American courts have not permitted a recovery . . . , it was done on the basis of causati......
  • Wright v. St. Mary's Medical Center of Evansville, No. EV 97-45-C Y/H.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • June 9, 1999
    ...where contest promoters denied plaintiff the opportunity to appear in final round of contest); Collatz v. Fox Wisc. Amusement Corp., 239 Wis. 156, 300 N.W. 162 (1941) (reversing lower court's award to plaintiff of half the value of prize when prize wrongfully awarded to other contestant bec......
  • Cent. Brown Cnty. Water Auth. v. Consoer, Case No. 09-C-0131
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • February 11, 2013
    ...result of action or inaction by [the defendant] or that he might sustain some damage in the future"); Collatz v. Fox Wis. Amusement Corp., 239 Wis. 156, 157-58, 300 N.W. 162, 163-64 (Wis. 1941) (holding contract claim failed because plaintiff could not show he suffered any damages even if t......
  • Mange v. Unicorn Press
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 7, 1955
    ...recovery, e. g. Phillips v. Pantages Theater Co., 1931, 163 Wash. 303, 300 P. 1048; Collatz v. Fox Wisconsin Amusement Corp., 1941, 239 Wis. 156, 300 N.W. 162, there appears to be a liberal trend towards allowing the jury to determine the value of the chance of which plaintiff was deprived.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT