Joseph Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club of the District of Columbia

Citation33 S.Ct. 401,227 U.S. 633,57 L.Ed. 679
Decision Date10 March 1913
Docket NumberNo. 59,59
PartiesJOSEPH MARRONE, Plff. in Err., v. WASHINGTON JOCKEY CLUB OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, S. S. Howland, Henry J. Morris, and Samuel Ross
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. Lorenzo A. Bailey and George A. Prevost for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 633-635 intentionally omitted] Messrs. A. S. Worthington and Charles L. Frailey for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action of trespass for forcibly preventing the plaintiff from entering the Bennings Race Track in this District after he had bought a ticket of admission, and for doing the same thing, or turning him out, on the following day, just after he had dropped his ticket into the box. There was also a count charging that the defendants conspired to destroy the plaintiff's reputation, and that they excluded him on the charge of having 'doped' or drugged a horse entered by him for a race a few days before, in pursuance of such conspiracy. But as no evidence of a conspiracy was introduced, and as no more force was used than was necessary to prevent the plaintiff from entering upon the race track, the argument hardly went beyond an attempt to overthrow the rule commonly accepted in this country from the English cases, and adopted below, that such tickets do not create a right in rem. 35 App. D. C. 82. Wood v. Leadbitter, 13 Mees. & W. 838, 14 L. J. Exch. N. S. 161, 9 Jur. 187, 16 Eng. Rul. Cas. 49; McCrea v. Marsh, 12 Gray, 211, 71 Am. Dec. 745; Johnson v. Wilkinson, 139 Mass. 3, 52 Am. Rep. 698, 29 N. E. 62; Horney v. Nixon, 213 Pa. 20, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1184, 110 Am. St. Rep. 520, 61 Atl. 1088, 5 Ann. Cas. 349; Meisner v. Detroit, B. I. & W. Ferry Co. 154 Mich. 545, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 872, 129 Am. St. Rep. 493, 118 N. W. 14; W. W. V. Co. v. Black, 113 Va. 728, 75 S. E. 82, 85; Shubert v. Nixon Amusement Co. 83 N. J. L. 101, 83 Atl. 369; Taylor v. Cohn, 47 Or. 538, 540, 84 Pac. 388, 8 Ann. Cas. 527; People ex rel. Burnham v. Flynn, 114 App. Div. 578, 100 N. Y. Supp. 31, 189 N. Y. 180, 82 N. E. 169, 12 Ann. Cas. 420.

We see no reason for declining to follow the commonly accepted rule. The fact that the purchase of the ticket made a contract is not enough. A contract binds the person of the maker, but does not create an interest in the property that it may concern, unless it also operates as a conveyance. The ticket was not a conveyance of an interest in the race...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • Badgett v. Federal Express Corp., No. 1:04 CV 220.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Middle District of North Carolina
    • April 7, 2005
    ....... No. 1:04 CV 220. . United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. . April 7, 2005. . ... Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 648 (4th ......
  • Marsh v. State of Alabama
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 7, 1946
    ...his presence is that he is exercising an asserted right to spread there his religious views. See Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633, 33 S.Ct. 401, 57 L.Ed. 679, 43 L.R.A.,N.S., 961. This is the first case to extend by law the privilege of religious exercises beyond public place......
  • DeRieux v. Five Smiths, Inc., 5-6 to 5-8.
    • United States
    • U.S. Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals
    • October 21, 1974
    ...the remedies for breach thereof are limited. A ticket does not create an irrevocable right of entry, Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633, 33 S.Ct. 401 57 L.Ed. 679 (1913), nor does it warrant against personal injuries, Jordan v. Concho Theatres, Inc., 160 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Civ.Ap......
  • Phila. Entm't & Dev. Partners, L.P. v. Commonwealth (In re Phila. Entm't & Dev. Partners, L.P.)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Third Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • April 8, 2016
    ...certain activities is not sufficient to invoke a court's in rem jurisdiction. Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club of District of Columbia, 227 U.S. 633, 636–37, 33 S.Ct. 401, 57 L.Ed. 679 (1913) (holding that a revocable license did not create "a right in rem "); In re Braniff Airways, Inc .,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

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