Shanchell v. Lewis Amusement Co., Inc.
Decision Date | 14 December 1936 |
Docket Number | 16467 |
Citation | 171 So. 426 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Parties | SHANCHELL v. LEWIS AMUSEMENT CO., Inc |
Rehearing denied Jan. 11, 1937. Writ of certiorari refused March 1, 1937.
Seigfried B. Christensen, of New Orleans, for appellant.
Azzo J Plough, of New Orleans, for appellee.
The petition further alleges that plaintiff's minor son, a negro, registered his name on November 5, 1935, on the registration rolls, having by this means been induced to purchase an admission ticket in the hope of being awarded a prize; that he attended the theater every Wednesday and Saturday night, on which nights drawings were held to determine the winner of "Bank Night" or "Sweepstakes Night"; (the terms are used interchangeably); that plaintiff's son on February 29, 1936, purchased a ticket of admission and entered the theater, but that on the following "Bank Night," March 1, 1936, when his son attempted to obtain a ticket for the purpose of entering the theater he was denied admission upon the ground that the theater was no longer selling tickets to negroes, "its balcony being in the process of repair to condition the same for white patrons exclusively; that on Wednesday, March 4, 1936, Joseph Shanchell again presented himself and attempted to purchase an admission ticket, but was refused; that on March 7, 1936, Joseph Shanchell presented himself at the theater and further attempted to purchase an admission ticket as he had done on previous occasions, but was refused entrance, being told that the theater was no longer selling negroes admissions or the right to be present in the theater for the "Bank Night" drawings and awards"; and "that on the night of March 7, 1936, when he was so prevented from entering the theatre, his name was drawn from the rolls prepared by the defendant, its manager, and agents; that had defendant permitted said Joseph Shanchell to be present in the theatre in keeping with the contract defendant had originally made with him, said Joseph Shanchell would have been awarded $ 105.00."
It will thus be seen that plaintiff's claim is based upon an alleged contract or, as his counsel terms it, a "continuing contract," which, it is claimed, was breached by the refusal to permit his son to enter the theater on the night when the drawing of the prize, which was a part of the consideration of the contract, occurred. In other words, he is suing for damages for a breach of contract, the damages being equal to the amount of the prize which his son would have won but for defendant's alleged breach of contract.
The exception of no cause of action is based upon the following grounds: First, that the alleged contract sued upon is unenforceable at law, being a gambling contract involving the conduction of a lottery scheme in violation of the laws of this state; and second, that plaintiff's petition fails to allege an obligation known to our laws, since it is not based upon a contract or quasi contract, nor is it a claim ex delicto or quasi ex delicto.
Considering the first ground of the exception, plaintiff's counsel argues that the "continuing contract" sued on is no more than the sale of a hope which is permissible under our laws. He cites articles 1887, 2450, and 2451 of the Revised Civil Code; Slidell v. McCoy's Ex'rs, 15 La. 340, 348, and Losecco v. Gregory, 108 La. 648, 32 So. 985.
Articles 2450 and 2451 of the Revised Civil Code were not taken from the Code Napoleon, it is said, but from Las Siete Partidas, from which counsel quotes the following: Book 5, Title 5, Law XI.
The following is quoted from Slidell v. McCoy's Ex'rs, supra: "A hope or expectation of gain or profit in some enterprize or speculation, may form the object of a contract of sale."
Pretermitting a consideration of the difficulty in comprehending what is meant by a "Continuing contract," we observe that article 1764 of the Revised Civil Code declares that "all things that are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Little River Theatre Corp. v. State Ex Rel. Hodge
... ... In the ... case of Shanchell v. Lewis Amusement Co., La.App., ... 171 So. 426, that ... Colonial ... Theatrical Enterprise, Inc., 276 Mich. 127, 267 N.W ... 602, the Court on appeal ... ...
-
State v. Wilson
... ... Wash. 258, 203 P. 21, 22; Shanchell v. Lewis ... Amusement Co. (La. App.), 171 So. 426, ... ...
-
State v. Wilson
...Enterprise, 276 Mich. 127, 267 N.W. 602, 603; Society Theatre v. City of Seattle, 118 Wash. 258, 203 P. 21, 22; Shanchell v. Lewis Amusement Co., La. App., 171 So. 426, 428. Whether the scheme is no less a lottery when the purchase of a ticket is not required, and the drawing is open to tho......
-
Doskey v. United Theatres
...11 So.2d 276 DOSKEY v. UNITED THEATRES, INC. No. 17852.Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Orleans.December ... In ... the case of Shanchell v. Lewis Amusement Company, La.App., ... 171 So. 426, 429, ... ...