Hankins v. Ottinger
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying a new trial. William R. Daingerfield, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Fleet, J.
It iscontended that the contract sued on was without consideration, in that it was a mere wagering venture which was void as against public policy, and not enforceable in a court of law. The contract, as alleged and found, was substantially this: The plaintiffs and the defendants, both owning racehorses, and having them entered in certain stake races about to be given by the Pacific Coast Blood Horse Association and the Oalfornia Jockey Club, made the agreement between themselves that they would pool all premiums and stake moneys offered by said associations on said races which should be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Harris v. . WhiteNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Gridley v. DornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Alvord v. SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
- People v. SergeantNew York Supreme Court · 1828
3Cited by12 opinions
- Pompano Horse Club, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. BryanSupreme Court of Florida · 1927
- Western Telcon, Inc. v. California State LotteryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Bell Gardens Bicycle Club v. Department of JusticeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Nevcal Enterprises, Inc. v. Cal-Neva Lodge, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1961
- Toomey v. PenwellMontana Supreme Court · 1926
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.