See v. Runzi

• Decision Date: 01 March 1904
• Citation: 105 Mo. App. 435,79 S.W. 992
• Parties: SEE v. RUNZI et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

79 S.W. 992

105 Mo. App. 435

SEE v. RUNZI et al.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 1, 1904.

GAMBLING TRANSACTIONS — "GAME OR GAMBLING DEVICE" — FUTURES AND OPTIONS.

1. Under Rev. St. 1899, §§ 2221-2225, and sections 2337-2342, declaring fictitious sales and purchases to be gambling, rendering all parties thereto particeps criminis, and imposing penalties therefor, and section 3424, providing that any person who shall lose any money or property at any game or gambling device may

recover it by civil action, such fictitious sales and purchases are not games or gambling devices, and a person losing money in such transactions cannot recover it under section 3424.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; E. M. Hughes, Judge.

Action by George W. See against Charles H. Runzi and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Claude R. Ball, for appellant. C. H. Krum and J. D. Barnett, for respondents.

REYBURN, J.

The amended petition of plaintiff in this action was adjudged defective upon demurrer thereto. The complaint charged that defendants were conducting a game or gambling device commonly called a "bucket shop," or were dealers in options or futures in Montgomery county, as well as the city of St. Louis, where by means of such game or gambling device defendants made such purchases and sales and pretended contracts for purchase and sale of shares of stocks and bonds of corporations and of provisions, cotton, grain, and agricultural products, or feigned to buy and sell on margins, without any intention of receiving or delivering the property so bought or sold by them. Continuing, the petition recited that plaintiff, during the months of February and March, 1903, by means of such game or gambling device, dealt in options and futures with defendants, and bought from defendants on margin a large number of shares of stock of various corporations and several thousand bushels of grain; that at no time did he intend to receive any stock or grain bought or sold by him, and none was received from defendants; that all transactions he made with defendants for stocks of various corporations, and for wheat, oats, and corn, were upon such game or gambling device, and upon margins, without any intention to receive or deliver any of the property so bought or sold by either plaintiff or defendants. Concluding, the petition contained assertions that within three months prior to the action defendants had won from plaintiff by means of such game or gambling device a sum named, being the difference between the amount paid by him to them and received by him from them, for which judgment was asked. The demurrer assigned that the facts...