Millsaps v. Urban
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from G-arland Circuit Court; G. T. Gotham, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Appellant advertised that he would give away an automobile under the conditions and in accordance with certain rules set forth in literature 'distributed by him.
Read the full summary
Appeal from G-arland Circuit Court; G. T. Gotham, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Appellant advertised that he would give away an automobile under the conditions and in accordance with certain rules set forth in literature 'distributed by him. His plan was that hie would furnish coupons to certain business houses in the city of Hot Springs which had become members of the Business Men’s Co-operative Club, a name given to the business houses which had arranged to procure these coupons from him, and which.are hereinafter designated as club members, and these coupons were to be given by the…
1Opinion of the Court
Smith, J.,
(after stating the facts). No point is made as to the illegality of the transaction out of which this litigation arose. No contention is made that this was a (lottery, or that the element of chance entered into the award of the prize. Had such been- the case, the entire transaction would have been illegal and the courts would have refused any aid in enforcing any rights depending upon it. McDaniel v. Orner, 91 Ark. 171; Watkins v. Curry, 103 Ark. 414; Carey v. Watkins, 97 Ark. 153; Burks v. Harris, 91 Ark. 205; Wood v. Stewart, 81 Ark. 41.(1) The jury was warranted, under the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Burks v. HarrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Wood v. StewartSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Carey v. WatkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- McDaniel v. OrnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Watkins v. CurrySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. LindsaySupreme Court of Vermont · 1938
- Amlie Strand Hardware Co. v. MooseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929