Rountree v. Ingle

• Decision Date: 02 April 1913
• Citation: 77 S.E. 931,94 S.C. 231
• Parties: ROUNTREE v. INGLE et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

77 S.E. 931

94 S.C. 231

ROUNTREE v. INGLE et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 2, 1913

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Union County; Thos. S Sease, Judge.

Action by T. J. Rountree against Ardella Ingle and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

John K Hamblin, of Union, for appellants. J. A. Sawyer, of Union for respondent.

WOODS J.

Some time in 1911, Bailey Furniture & Lumber Company, of the city of Union, issued the following printed circular: "An elegant range free. In order to advertise their high grade stoves and ranges the Cresent Stove Works of Evansville, Ind., are furnishing us this $65.00 range free to give away to our customers. It will not cost the one who gets it a brownie. *** Trade with us and in addition to getting more and better goods for the money, we give you a numbered card a duplicate of which is placed in a box from which a number will be drawn and the one holding the corresponding number will get the range, which will be given away about the first of October. Every dollar you spend with us before that time gets you a chance at the range. Hold your tickets and watch our ad. the first week in October and see who gets the range. It may be you if you trade with the Bailey Furniture & Lumber Company, the home furnishers and home builders, Union, S. C." A cut of the range was attached to the circular.

The card numbered 1616 was drawn from the box, and, upon that card being presented by the defendant Ardella Ingle, the range was delivered to her. The plaintiff, T. J. Rountree, then brought this action in a magistrate's court to recover the range from the defendant. At the trial he offered testimony in substance as follows: Plaintiff made a purchase from Bailey Furniture & Lumber Company and received cards numbered from 1604 to 1639; in consequence of hearing that 1660 was the number of the card drawn, he dropped all of his cards in the yard; when he found out that the card drawing the range was 1616, which he had held, he tried to find it among those thrown out but failed. On the part of the defendant Ardella Ingle, the testimony was to the effect that she had acquired the card 1616 among others given her when she made a purchase at the store of Bailey Furniture & Lumber Company. The magistrate held, as matters of fact, that the plaintiff originally held the card; that it was among those which he dropped in his yard; and that some one had found it there and had given it to the defendant Ardella Ingle; and he adjudged the range to be the property of the plaintiff. The defendant, on appeal to the circuit court, contended that, even if the facts be as found by the magistrate, yet the plaintiff could have no relief, because his entire claim was founded on a lottery drawing, and that the court, in accordance with the well-established policy of the law in such cases, would give no relief but leave the parties where it found them. The circuit judge held otherwise and affirmed the judgment of the magistrate.

There can be no doubt that the scheme under which the winning card was drawn was a lottery. On this point the authorities seem to be unanimous. 26 Cyc. 1637; 14 Am. & Eng. Enc. 602, and cases cited. Our statute makes not only the promoter of a lottery but the adventurers in it liable to indictment. Criminal Code of 1912, §§ 259, 260. Under these sections, the purchaser of a lottery ticket is in pari delicto with the seller. The purchase being a criminal act, the purchaser can base no legal claim thereon for the money paid to the seller or to the prize allotted to his ticket. Indeed, his whole transaction is without the pale of the law, and he cannot invoke the aid of the courts in enforcement of any claim depending on it. The purchaser of a lottery ticket in this state is therefore in a different plight from one who loses money in gambling or dealing in cotton futures, who may recover the amount paid out. Civil Code of 1912, §§ 3417-3423. The plaintiff in the present case having acquired his ticket in violation of the statute which made the acquisition of it criminal, it follows that his claim does not fall under cases like Martin v. Richardson, 94 Ky. 183, 21 S.W. 1039, 19 L. R. A. 692, 42 Am. St. Rep. 353, and Becker v. Wilcox, 81 Neb. 476, 116 N.W. 160, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 571, 129 Am. St. Rep. 690, decided on the ground that the purchaser was not guilty of any criminal act; the statute against lotteries being enacted for his protection against those who conduct them.

Nor will it aid the plaintiff that the magistrate and circuit judge found that the defendant acquired the winning ticket by unfair means and presented it and obtained the prize offered under the false pretense that she had received it from the merchant who gave them out. The principle thus stated by Lord Mansfield in Holman v. Johnson, 1 Cowper, 343, is universally recognized: "The objection that a contract is immoral or illegal, as between the plaintiff and the defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the...