Delier v. The Plymouth County Agr. Soc.

• Decision Date: 17 December 1881
• Citation: 10 N.W. 872,57 Iowa 481
• Parties: DELIER v. THE PLYMOUTH COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

10 N.W. 872

57 Iowa 481

DELIER v. THE PLYMOUTH COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 17, 1881

Appeal from Plymouth Circuit Court.

THE petition states the defendant has the power, and under the statute holds fairs, and that in October, 1880, one of such fairs was held, and as "an inducement to owners and persons having charge of horses to attend and enter their animals, the said defendant issued printed offers of premiums, among which offers was one of $ 50, first money for the best three in five, free for all trotting, and was open to all horses owned in the county of Plymouth, Iowa and not otherwise." * * * That at said time the plaintiff had in his charge a trotting mare owned by Cameron, then residing in said county, * * which mare was entered by plaintiff for the said race above referred to, in accordance with the rules of the defendant society, he paying the required entry fee, and thereby becoming entitled to participation in the race;" that among the horses so entered was one owned from Woodbury county, which horse "made the fastest time, and the horse in charge of and entered by plaintiff made the next best time; that after and before said race the plaintiff notified the proper officers of said fair, to-wit, the officers of defendant, "that the Woodbury county horse was not entitled to contest for the premium offered, and after said race the said plaintiff entered with the secretary of defendant his oral protest against the owner of the Woodbury county horse being paid the said award * * upon the ground that he * * was, and had been, a resident of Woodbury county." Notwithstanding which the premium was paid to the owner of the last named horse. There was a demurrer to the petition which was overruled, and defendant appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Argo & Kelly, for appellant.

I. S Struble, for appellee.

OPINION

SEEVERS, J.

I.

As contemplated by statute, in cases where the amount in controversy is less than one hundred dollars, certain questions have been certified upon which it is said to be desirable to have the opinion of the Supreme Court, among which are the following:

"1. Does section 1114 of the Code of 1873 prohibit horse-racing at county agricultural society fairs and on its grounds, such as is contemplated by the petition in this case?

"2. Is an agreement, such as is alleged in the petition, made by such society with the owner of a trotting horse, whereby said society promises to pay a sum of money to the winner of the race, against public policy?"

"3. Can the plaintiff maintain an action for the recovery of money won on such race, as is contemplated and described in said petition?"

It is provided by statute: "All county agricultural societies shall annually offer and award premiums for the improvement of stock, tillage, crops, implements, mechanical fabrics, articles of domestic industry, and such other articles and improvements as they may deem proper. And they shall so regulate the amount of premiums and the different grade sof the same, that small as well as large farmers and artisans may compete therefor." Code, § 1109.

It is insisted this section does not confer upon agricultural societies the power to "offer a premium to the winner at a horse-race to be held on its grounds during the continuance of its annual fair." It is made the duty of such societies to "offer and award premiums for the improvement of stock." That an improvement in the size, strength, and capacity of horses is desirable there can be no doubt. Why not also in speed? Counsel practically concedes this is so but say such an improvement is less desirable than "weight, strength, style, and tractability." This may be true, but why should "style" be regarded as a more desirable improvement than speed. However this may be, the defendant, we think, had the power to determine that to increase the speed of horses was a desirable improvement. The means by which this was to be accomplished is discretionary. That is, the society must determine in what way the desired result can be best reached. Should it be thought best to offer a premium for a trial of strength, the society has the power to do so. It follows, we think, a premium may be offered for a trial of speed. It matters not what it may be called, unless it is prohibited by statute, or is contrary to public policy.

But it is said that no one but farmers and artisans can compete, for the premiums. This we do not think is the proper construction of the statute. The premiums and grades are to be so arranged that all farmers and artisans may compete therefor. But other persons are not prohibited from competing, and we think the object of the statute is to encourage development and progress, and that competition is open to all persons instead...