Crystal Amusement Corp. v. Northrop, 62624
| Decision Date | 25 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 62624,62624 |
| Citation | 118 A.2d 467,19 Conn.Supp. 498 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Common Pleas |
| Parties | CRYSTAL AMUSEMENT CORPORATION v. Louis NORTHROP. |
D. Harold Cotter, Bridgeport, for plaintiff.
Ernest M. Arnold, Bridgeport, for defendant.
FITZ GERALD, Judge.
The plaintiff has brought this action to recover of the defendant the contract price of a 'free play' pinball machine sold and delivered to the latter on August 24, 1953, in the agreed amount of $448.05. The defendant concedes the sale to him of the machine in question but resists payment on the ground that the state's attorney for Fairfield County has given an opinion that the use of such a machine is violative of law. Hence the defendant takes the position that the use of the machine by customers in his store would subject him to arrest and prosecution. He seeks exoneration from payment on the theory that the subject matter of the sale when put to use is illegal and that the contract is unenforceable in law. He is willing to permit the plaintiff to take back the machine if payment is waived. For its part the plaintiff stands on the contract of sale.
It is fundamental that a legal sale gives rise to contractual obligations between the parties thereto which are enforceable. However, a contract in violation of a statute or contrary to public policy is not enforceable in the courts of Connecticut. Ciampittiello v. Campitello, 134 Conn. 51, 55, 54 A.2d 669, 173 A.L.R. 691. This rule represents the weight of authority. 12 Am.Jur. 652 § 158, 662 § 167.
The determinative question in the case, therefore, is whether the use of the machine which is the subject matter of the sale would be violative of the Connecticut statutes against gambling, General Statutes §§ 8655, 8656, or would otherwise contravene public policy. Counsel have joined in a comprehensive stipulation of facts regarding the manner of use of the machine and the method of operation by a player. The stipulation is now made an official part of the file for reference purposes. It is to be particularly noted that the very most that a successful player in the exercise of skill can obtain is a 'free play' without payment of an additional coin.
As pointed out in the able brief of the plaintiff, the leading case in this country on the legal attributes of a machine of this character is Washington Coin Mach. Ass'n v. Callahan, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 41, 142 F.2d 97. The penetrating opinion therein of Chief Justice Groner of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is deemed to be the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wnek Vending & Amusements Co., Inc. v. City of Buffalo
...62 Mich.App. 140, 233 N.W.2d 216; Cossack v. Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 726, 114 Cal.Rptr. 460, 523 P.2d 260; Crystal Amusement Corporation v. Northrup, 19 Conn.Sup. 498, 118 A.2d 467; State v. Fitzpatrick (Idaho), 407 P.2d 309; People v. One Mechanical Device, supra; McNeice v. Minneapolis, 25......
-
People v. One Mechanical Device
...140 Pa.Super. 68, 13 A.2d 104; State v. One 'Jack and Jill' Pinball Machine, Mo.App., 224 S.W.2d 854; Crystal Amusement Corporation v. Northrop, 91 Conn.Sup. 498, 118 A.2d 467. We are of the opinion that a free play is neither money, the equivalent of money, nor a valuable thing. It is unre......
-
McNeice v. City of Minneapolis
...Kling, 140 Pa.Super. 68, 13 A.2d 104; State v. One 'Jack and Jill' Pinball Machine, Mo.App., 224 S.W.2d 854; Crystal Amusement Corp. v. Northrop, 19 Conn.Supp. 498, 118 A.2d 467; Gayer v. Whelan, 59 Cal.App.2d 255, 138 P.2d 763. But, see, Thamart v. Moline, 66 Idaho 110, 156 P.2d 187; State......
-
Masters v. Kansas City
...156 Kan. 143, 131 P.2d 708, 148 A.L.R. 874; State v. One Bally Coney Island, 174 Kan. 757, 258 P.2d 225; Crystal Amusement Corp. v. Northrop, 19 Conn.Sup. 498, 118 A.2d 467; Gayer v. Whelan, Cal.App., 138 P.2d As said in the Davies case, supra , "These machines are lacking in the essential ......