Young v. Sands, Inc., 59-620
| Decision Date | 19 August 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 59-620,59-620 |
| Citation | 122 So.2d 618 |
| Parties | Huey T. YOUNG, Appellant, v. SANDS, INC., a Nevada corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sibley, Grusmark, Barkdull & King, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Snyder & Young, No. Miami Beach, for appellee.
Appellee, plaintiff below, brought this action to collect the amount of a bank check alleged to have been delivered to appellee by appellant, defendant below, in the amount of $1,600 drawn to the order of cash. Appellant admitted drawing the check but pleaded the affirmative defense that the check was given for money advanced for the purpose of gambling at a casino in appellee's hotel and that appellee had knowledge of that intent. At a trial without jury judgment was rendered for appellee and it is from that judgment this is taken.
The affirmative defense is based on § 849.26, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which provides as follows:
'Gambling contracts declared void; exception All promises, agreements, notes, bills, bonds or other contracts, mortgages or other securities, when the whole or part of the consideration if for money or other valuable thing won or lost, laid, staked, betted or wagered in any gambling transaction whatsoever, regardless of its name or nature, whether heretofore prohibited or not, or for the repayment of money lent or advanced at the time of a gambling transaction for the purpose of being laid, betted, staked or wagered, are void and of no effect; provided, that this act shall not apply to wagering on parimutuels or any gambling transaction expressly authorized by law.'
This act was passed by the Legislature of Florida in 1951 but a search reveals that this is the first appearance that said act has made in an appellate court of this state.
The clear language of this act provides that a check given for the repayment of money lent or advanced at the time of a gambling transaction for the purpose of being wagered is void. A gambling obligation although valid in the state where created can not be enforced in Florida because it is contrary to public policy. See Lloyd v. Cooper Corporation, 101 Fla. 533, 134 So. 562; Union Trust Co. v. Grosman, 245 U.S. 412, 38 S.Ct. 147, 62 L.Ed. 368.
The plaintiff introduced the check into evidence and presented the deposition of the credit manager of the Sands Hotel of Las Vegas, Nevada, which was in the form of answers to interrogatories. Thereby, the credit manager...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Simpson
...1968); see also Dorado Beach Hotel Corporation v. Jernigan, 202 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App. 1967); see also Young v. Sands, 122 So.2d 618 (Fla. 3rd Dist.Ct.App. 1960). 31 Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green, 329 U.S. 156, 67 S.Ct. 237, 91 L.Ed. 162 32 Id. at 329 U.S. 156,......
-
M & R Investments, Co., Inc. v. Hacker, 86-1950
...13, 1987). A public policy defense was rejected. The other cases relied upon by the debtor and by the trial court, Young v. Sands, Inc., 122 So.2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); Dorado Beach Hotel Corp. v. Jernigan, 202 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967), dismissed, 209 So.2d 669 (Fla.1968); and Barqui......
-
MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. v. Siegel
...agreement sued upon was void as a gambling contract rendered unenforceable by section 849.26, Florida Statutes. 1 See Young v. Sands, Inc., 122 So.2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). We deem it inappropriate to reach the difficult issue of whether the statutory bar extends to void a contract in whic......
-
Carp v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 67--959
...§ 849.26, F.S.A. This is so even though the gambling contracts are valid in the State where they are executed. See Young v. Sands, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 618. In Florida, the legislature has authorized parimutuel wagering on certain racing and jai alai. The enactment of this act did ......