Waring v. Lobdell, 36750
| Decision Date | 02 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 36750,36750 |
| Parties | Earl A. WARING, Respondent, v. Stanley L. LOBDELL and Irene Lobdell, his wife, Appellants. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Edmund T. Brigham, Newport, for appellants.
Jay Roy Jones, Newport, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment awarded to the plaintiff (respondent) Earl A. Waring, a tavern operator in Newport, Washington, in an action against defendants (appellants), Stanley L. Lobdell and his wife. The suit was brought to recover payments made by the plaintiff to the United States Government for 'gaming device' licenses, plus penalties and interest assessed thereon, on certain pinball machines that had been operating in his place of business.
The machines, owned by the defendants, were placed in the plaintiff's place of business and were allegedly operated as amusement devices. For several years, the federal government licensed these machines as amusement devices and levied an annual tax of $10 on each machine. In June, 1960 however, the plaintiff received notice from the Internal Revenue Service of an assessment of $250 per year per machine, as gaming devices under the federal code, 26 U.S.C. § 4461(2); 26 U.S.C. § 4462(2). The tax, penalties and interest totaled $2,020.90.
The plaintiff denied the machines were gaming devices, but entered into a compromise settlement with the Internal Revenue Service and paid a total amount of $1,840.39, in lieu of the original $2,020.90 assessment.
The trial court found that the parties agreed to share profits and expenses, and they were, therefore, engaged in a joint venture. Judgment was awarded in favor of the plaintiff for one-half of the amount paid, plus interest since its payment, and for costs.
The defendants appealed contending that the trial court erred in introducing certain evidence and in finding that a joint venture relationship existed. We do not find it necessary to reach these contentions at this time.
The question arises from the record as to whether the relief sought by the plaintiff is based upon a contract to engage in a gambling enterprise. It is clearly the policy of the law not to aid an illegal transaction. In Hederman v. George, 35 Wash.2d 357, 212 P.2d 841 (1949), we said:
. * * *'
If illegality appears, the court will deny...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shinn v. Edwin Yee, Ltd.
...been pursued in the trial court, the appellate court may itself raise the issue and remand for findings on the point, Waring v. Lobdell, 63 Wash.2d 532, 387 P.2d 979 7 (1964), or if further findings are not necessary, the appellate court may order the case dismissed though the issue of ille......
-
Brougham v. Swarva, s. 8807-6-
...our courts will not enforce a contract which grows immediately out of and is connected with an illegal act. Waring v. Lobdell, 63 Wash.2d 532, 533, 387 P.2d 979 (1964). Accordingly, a plaintiff could not recover money which he alleged was owed to him pursuant to an illegal contract to condu......
-
Freeman v. State
...“grow[ ] immediately out of and [are] connected with an illegal act” are similarly unenforceable. Id. (citing Waring v. Lobdell, 63 Wash.2d 532, 533, 387 P.2d 979 (1964)). Here, WSDOT's decision to enter into the umbrella agreement was arbitrary and capricious given a proper interpretation ......
-
Golberg v. Sanglier
...643 (1947). The same rule applies if the contract grows immediately out of and is connected with an illegal act. Waring v. Lobdell, 63 Wash.2d 532, 533, 387 P.2d 979 (1964). The Court of Appeals refused to entertain petitioners' claim based on the partnership agreement because the agreement......