Dicker v. Klein
| Decision Date | 04 January 1972 |
| Citation | 277 N.E.2d 514,360 Mass. 735 |
| Parties | Norton V. DICKER v. Leo M. KLEIN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Peter Myerson, Boston, for the plaintiff.
Laurence M. Johnson, Boston, for defendant.
Before TAURO, C.J., and CUTTER, REARDON, BRAUCHER and HENNESSEY, JJ.
This case was tried without a jury before a Superior Court judge who reported the case to this court, without decision, pursuant to G.L. c. 231, § 111. The question before us is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover on a debt incurred by the defendant in the Bahama Islands. The plaintiff's declaration contains six counts including those on two promissory notes, 1 those on oral contracts and those for money lent and money had and received.
The parties have filed a statement of agreed facts. The plaintiff is the assignee of Bahamas Amusements, Ltd., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Bahama Islands. The assignor owned and operated the Lucayan Beach Hotel located in Freeport, Grand Bahama. A gambling casino duly licensed under the laws of the Bahama Islands was operated at the hotel. On or about October 20 and 21, 1965, the defendant, a resident of this Commonwealth, was a guest at the hotel and took part in gambling activities in the casino. The debts here in question, amounting to $20,000, were incurred by the defendant when he borrowed the money from the plaintiff's assignor for use, in whole or in part, in his gambling activities at the casino. The two instruments involved were executed by the defendant to secure payment of those debrs. The plaintiff took assignment of the debts and instruments with notice and actual knowledge of all of the circumstances.
The sole issue before us concerns the validity of the contract made between the defendant and the plaintiff's assignor wherein the defendant agreed to repay the money lent to him by the plaintiff's assignment On this issue, it has long been the rule in this Commonwealth that the law of the place where the contract was made governs. Burke v. National Shawmut Bank, 284 Mass. 36, 39, 187 N.E. 114. Charney v. Charney, 316 Mass. 580, 582, 55 N.E.2d 917. Lenn v. Riche, 331 Mass. 104, 109, 117 N.E.2d 129. West Side Motor Exp. Inc. v. Finance Discount Corp., 340 Mass. 669, 671, 165 N.E.2d 903. We must therefore look to the law of the Bahama Islands. On this issue we point out that, even though that law was not brought to the attention of the court below, we are nevertheless authorized to take judicial notice of it under G.L. c. 233, § 70. De Gategno v. De Gategno, 336 Mass. 426, 146 N.E.2d 497. Fiduciary Trust Co. v. First Natl. Bank, 344 Mass. 1, 13, n. 4, 181 N.E.2d 6.
Chapter 74 of the Statute Law of the Bahama Islands, which was in effect when the debts in the case before us were incurred, provides, in relevant part, that '(a)ll notes, bills, bonds, judgments, mortgages, all other securities or conveyances whatsoever . . . entered into or executed by any person . . . where the whole or any part of the consideration of such conveyances . . . shall be . . . for the reimbursing or repaying (of) any money knowingly lent or advanced for . . . gaming or betting . . . shall be utterly void . . . and of none effect to all intents and purposes whatsoever, any statute law or usage to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.' We believe that this broad provision is directly applicable to the facts of the present case. Without question, the statute was intended to proscribe gambling on credit in situations where the lender advances money knowing that some or all of the money will be used for gambling purposes. To discourage such activities, the Bahamas...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Choate, Hall & Stewart v. SCA Services, Inc.
...where the contract was made (see Cameron v. Gunstock Acres, Inc., 370 Mass. 378, 381-382, 348 N.E.2d 791 (1976); Dicker v. Klein, 360 Mass. 735, 736, 277 N.E.2d 514 (1972); Fine, Massachusetts Contract Cases and Problems in the Choice of Law, 43 Mass.L.Q. No. 3, at 46 (1958)), and that rule......
-
McKinney v. National Dairy Council
...Electric Co., 525 F.2d 521 (1st Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 978, 96 S.Ct. 1485, 47 L.Ed.2d 748 (1976), and Dicker v. Klein, 360 Mass. 735, 277 N.E.2d 514 (1972), that the contract at issue, if made at all, was made in New York, and that the New York statute of frauds therefore govern......
-
Molinar v. Western Elec. Co.
...adheres to the early conflicts rule that the place of making governs the nature and validity of a contract. Dicker v. Klein, Mass.,277 N.E.2d 514, 515-16 (1972); West Side Motor Express, Inc. v. Finance Discount Corp., 340 Mass. 669, 165 N.E.2d 903 (1960); see Wetherell Bros. v. United Stat......
-
Schulhof v. Northeast Cellulose, Inc.
...to material contract issues. Cameron v. Gunstock Acres, Inc., Mass.1976, 370 Mass. 378, 381-82, 348 N.E.2d 791; Dicker v. Klein, Mass.1972, 360 Mass. 735, 736, 277 N.E.2d 514. The Supreme Judicial Court has implied that it will no longer follow a single factor approach but has not had occas......