Terry v. Olcott
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action against the defendant, as the indorser of a promissory note, made by Hezekiah Kilbourn. The case was tried at Hartford, February term, 1822, before Peters, J. On the trial, the making and indorsement of the note, the demand of payment, non-payment and notice, as alleged in the declaration, were admitted.
Read the full summary
This was an action against the defendant, as the indorser of a promissory note, made by Hezekiah Kilbourn. The case was tried at Hartford, February term, 1822, before Peters, J. On the trial, the making and indorsement of the note, the demand of payment, non-payment and notice, as alleged in the declaration, were admitted. It was also admitted, that in March, 1820, previous to the making of the note, Kilbourn kept an office, in the city of Hartford, for the sale of tickets in the “National Lottery,"—a lottery set up without special liberty from the General Assembly of this state; and there,…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
By the act for preventing and suppressing lotteries, it is enacted, “That no person or persons whatever shall, within this state, buy, purchase, sell or otherwise dispose of any lottery ticket, issued from or under the authority of any other state whatever.” (a) This law was aimed not only against the sale of tickets, authorized by any of the United States, but against the sale of such as proceeded from any *445other sovereignty. The words of the law, undoubtedly, reach to this extent; and the object of it entirely harmonizes with the expression. It was the intent of the legislature…
2Cited by9 opinions
- City of Norwalk v. DanieleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
- Philadelphia Loan Co. v. TownerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1839
- McLaughlin v. PoucherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1941
- State Ex Rel. Maisano v. MitchellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
- Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. v. Inman, Akers & InmanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.