Quatsoe v. Eggleston
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: Melvin C. George, Judge. Action by F. L. Quatsoe and another, partners as the Manufacturers’ Advertising Company, against W. H. Eggleston, on the following written contract, entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant on May 29, 1901: “To further advertise the Walworth pianos, manufactured by the M. Schulz Co-., of Chicago, Ill., we, Quatsoe Bros., doing business as the Manufacturers’ Advertising Co., of Chicago, Ill., hereinafter called the first…
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: Melvin C. George, Judge. Action by F. L. Quatsoe and another, partners as the Manufacturers’ Advertising Company, against W. H. Eggleston, on the following written contract, entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant on May 29, 1901: “To further advertise the Walworth pianos, manufactured by the M. Schulz Co-., of Chicago, Ill., we, Quatsoe Bros., doing business as the Manufacturers’ Advertising Co., of Chicago, Ill., hereinafter called the first party, agree to furnish three Walworth pianos to be given away as an advertisement. Said pianos will be awarded at the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bean
The setting up, promoting, or conducting a lottery is not only a species of gaming, immoral and vicious per se, but is prohibited by the constitution, article XY, section 4, and made a crime by statute (B. & C. Comp. § 1959). The court was therefore not in error in dismissing the action sua sponte, if the agreement set ont in the complaint, and upon which it is based, is in fact a lottery contract. To this question we shall direct our attention. The term ‘ ‘ lottery ’ ’ has no technical legal meaning, but the courts adopt the generally accepted definition in popular use. Webster says that it…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Horner v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Hull v. . RugglesNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Hudelson v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Meyer v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Wilkinson v. . GillNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Poppen v. WalkerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. CoatsOregon Supreme Court · 1937
- CUDD v. AschenbrennerOregon Supreme Court · 1962
- National Thrift Assn. v. Crews.Oregon Supreme Court · 1925
- State v. SchwemlerOregon Supreme Court · 1936
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.