Glover v. Malloska, 128.

Decision Date01 April 1927
Docket NumberNo. 128.,128.
Citation238 Mich. 216,213 N.W. 107
PartiesGLOVER et al. v. MALLOSKA et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Genesee County, in Chancery; Fred W. Brennan, Judge.

Suit by Floyd M. Glover, doing business as the Flint Oil Company, and others, against William F. Malloska, doing business as the Lincoln Petroleum Products Company, and others. Decree of dismissal, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and rendered.

Argued before the Entire Bench, except BIRD, J.Neithercut & Neithercut, of Flint, for appellants.

Gault & Parker, of Flint, for appellees.

WIEST, J.

This is a bill in equity to enjoin an alleged lottery scheme, claimed to be employed by defendants to attract business to the injury of plaintiffs' property rights in competing business. Defendant Malloska, doing business as the Lincoln Petroleum Products Company in the city of Flint, conceived the idea that it would aid his business of selling gasoline and oils to retail dealers, to have tickets printed giving holders thereof a chance to draw an automobile at monthly drawings. Malloska procured the tickets, sold the same at a cent each to his customers, and let them give away the tickets to purchasers at their retail oil stations, or to any one asking for tickets without making a purchase. Once a month stubs of the tickets so given out were placed in a barrel, a drawing made and the winner determined by chance. Plaintiffs are wholesale dealers in gasoline and oils in the same city, and assert the lottery scheme so employed by their competitor, and his customers in the retail trade, caused their sales to greatly fall off, to their financial injury, and by the bill herein they seek an injunction to restrain such unfair and illegal practice. The circuit judge held there was no violation of the statute against lotteries and dismissed the bill. Plaintiffs appealed. Two questions are presented: (1) Was the scheme a lottery? (2) if so, has the equity court jurisdiction?

Section 15050, C. L. 1915, provides:

‘Every person who shall set up or promote, within this state, any lottery or gift enterprise for money, or shall dispose of any property, real or personal, goods, chattels or merchandise or valuable thing, by the way of lottery or gift enterprise, and every person who shall aid, either by printing or writing, or shall in any way be concerned in the setting up, managing or drawing of any such lottery or gift enterprise, or who shall in any house, shop or building owned or occupied by him or under his control, knowingly permit the setting up, managing or drawing of any such lottery or gift enterprise, or the sale of any lottery ticket or share of a ticket, or any other writing, certificate, bill, goods, chattels or merchandise, token or other device purporting or intended to entitle the holder or bearer or other person to any prize or gift, or to any share of or interest in any prize or gift to be drawn in any such lottery or gift enterprise, * * * shall for every such offense be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year.’

Section 15051, C. L. 1915, provides:

‘Every person who shall sell either for himself or for any other person, or shall offer for sale, or shall have in his possession with intent to sell or offer for sale, or to exchange or negotiate, or shall in any wise aid or assist in the selling, negotiating or disposing of a ticket in any such lottery or gift enterprise, * * * shall be punished.’

The scheme was clearly a lottery. People v. McPhee, 139 Mich. 687, 103 N. W. 174,69 L. R. A. 505,5 Ann. Cas. 835;People v. Wassmus, 214 Mich. 42, 182...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 cases
  • American Broadcasting Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 5, 1953
    ...v. Waller, 1 Terry 28, 40 Del. 28, 5 A.2d 257; Furst v. A. & G. Amusement Co., 128 N.J.L. 311, 25 A.2d 892; Glover v. Malloska, 238 Mich. 216, 213 N.W. 107, 52 A. L.R. 77; State v. Jones, 44 N.M. 623, 107 P.2d 324; Affiliated Enterprises v. Gantz, 10 Cir., 86 F.2d 597; Central States Theatr......
  • Citizens for Pre-Trial Justice v. Goldfarb
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • February 20, 1979
    ...Inc., 280 Mich. 425, 431, 273 N.W 756 (1937), Seifert v. Buhl Optical Co., supra, 276 Mich. p. 700, 268 N.W. 784, Glover v. Malloska, 238 Mich. 216, 220, 213 N.W. 107 (1927). See also, Village of Port Austin v. Parsons, 349 Mich. 629, 631, 85 N.W.2d 120 In the instant case there is certainl......
  • Ingo v. Koch
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 15, 1942
    ...824; 3 Restatement of Torts, §§ 708-709; Deon v. Kirby Lumber Co., 162 La. 671, 111 So. 55, 52 A.L.R. 1023; Glover v. Malloska, 238 Mich. 216, 213 N.W. 107, 52 A.L.R. 77; Huskie v. Griffin, 75 N.H. 345, 74 A. 595, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 966, 139 Am.St.Rep. 718; Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S.......
  • Rohan v. Detroit Racing Ass'n
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1946
    ...for exercising the reason or judgment or any other faculty of the mind, and hence the lottery.’ In Glover v. Malloska, 238 Mich. 216, 219, 213 N.W. 107, 108, 52 A.L.R. 77, we said that the essentials of a lottery were ‘consideration, prize, and chance.’ See also, Sproat-Temple Theatre Corp.......
  • 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