State ex rel. Beck v. Fox Kansas Theatre Co.
Decision Date | 12 December 1936 |
Docket Number | 33026. |
Parties | STATE ex rel. BECK, Atty. Gen., v. FOX KANSAS THEATRE CO. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
"Bank night" theater plan held to include elements of prize chance, and consideration, sufficient to make it an illegal "policy" or "scheme of drawing in nature of a lottery," authorizing forfeiture of license of corporation conducting bank night (Rev.St.1923, 21--1501; Const. art. 15, § 3).
1. The "bank night" theater plan, as set out in the answer of the defendant in this quo warranto action, and copied in the opinion, is held to include the three necessary elements of prize, chance, and consideration, sufficient to make it a policy or scheme of drawing in the nature of a lottery as prohibited by article 15, § 3, of the Constitution of the State of Kansas , and as described and defined in R.S 21--1501.
2. Any gift enterprise, policy or scheme of drawing, in the nature of a lottery, is prohibited and made illegal in this state and the "bank night," as outlined by the defendant is at least in the nature of a lottery.
Original quo warranto proceeding by the State, on the relation of Clarence V. Beck, Attorney General, against the Fox Kansas Theatre Company, a corporation.
Judgment for plaintiff.
Clarence V. Beck, Atty. Gen., and Morton B. Cole, Asst. Atty. Gen. (F. E. Williams, of St. Loius, Mo., of counsel), for plaintiff.
Roland Boynton, of Topeka (Emmett Thurmon, of Denver, Colo., and S. P. Halpern, of Minneapolis, Minn., of counsel), for defendant.
This is an original proceeding in quo warranto brought in the name of the state of Kansas on relation of the Attorney General of the state, to oust and enjoin the Fox Kansas Theatre Company, as a corporation, from exercising or doing business within the state of Kansas because of the misuse and abuse of franchises, privileges, and authority conferred upon it by the laws of the state of Kansas, in that it conducted, operated, managed, and superintended at its theaters, and particularly at the one in the city of Fort Scott, on February 26, 1936, a lottery, gift enterprise, policy or scheme in the nature of a lottery, advertised and commonly known as "bank night."
The first six paragraphs of the amended petition describe the parties to the action, the plaintiff in its official capacity and the defendant in its corporate capacity, and then devotes the last four paragraphs to describing the method and way of conducting the "bank night" plan, concluding that such conduct was not within the corporate privileges of the defendant, that it was in violation of the laws of Kansas, and was a great harm and injury to the general public and the state of Kansas. The defendant in its answer admits the allegations of the first six paragraphs of the amended petition, but denies all the other allegations thereof, and then pleaded at length a defense of its operation of "bank night" and that it is not in any way or manner violating any of the laws of the state or exceeding its corporate privileges.
The plaintiff then moved the court for judgment for plaintiff on the pleadings for the reason that they show plaintiff to be entitled to the relief for which it prayed. Under such motion the exact language of the amended petition is not of particular importance, the nature of the plaintiff's claim having been heretofore briefly stated, but the language and grounds of the defense are especially important in meeting the allegations of the amended petition, so the entire answer except a few formal portions is here set out and is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Broadcasting Co. v. United States
...Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that Maughs v. Porter was against the great weight of authority. In State of Kansas ex rel. Beck v. Fox Kansas Theatre Corp., 144 Kan. 687, 62 P.2d 929, the Supreme Court of Kansas referred to Maughs v. Porter as representing an "extreme instance of the fe......
-
State ex rel. Stephan v. Finney, 69616
...39 Pac. 708. We found no distinction between this case and Mercantile. 54 Kan. at 718, 39 Pac. 708. In State ex rel. Beck v. Fox Kansas Theatre Co., 144 Kan. 687, 62 P.2d 929 (1936), defendant implemented a "bank night" as an advertising means of increasing theater ticket sales. The theater......
-
Albert Lea Amusement Corp. v. Hanson, 35116
...as a result thereof, the latter being deemed sufficient consideration to render the plan invalid. State ex rel. Beck v. Fox Kansas Theatre Co., 144 Kan. 687, 62 P.2d 929, 109 A.L.R. 698; State ex rel. Draper v. Lynch, 192 Okl. 497, 137 P.2d 949; State v. Jones, 44 N.M. 623, 107 P.2d 4. In o......
-
State ex rel. Stephan v. Finney
... . Page 1169 . 836 P.2d 1169 . 251 Kan. 559 . STATE of Kansas, ex rel., Robert T. STEPHAN, Attorney . General, Petitioner, . v. . The Honorable Joan FINNEY, ...111, 283 P.2d 418 [1955]; theater . Page 1177 . bank nights (State, ex rel., Beck v. Fox Kansas Theatre Co., 144 Kan. 687, 62 P.2d 929 [1936]; and a "playing policy" (State ex rel. ......