MILTON JOHNS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
EVERETT SMITH, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision, holding that a contract for sums collected as a 'purse, prize or premium' for a race horse was not a prohibited gaming contract under state statutes.
No, a 'purse, prize or premium' is not equivalent to a 'stake, bet or wager,' and the facts presented do not demonstrate a violation of statutes prohibiting gaming or lotteries.
“A “purse, prize or premium” is not equivalent to a “stake, bet or wager,” and the facts appearing in the declaration do not show them to be similar in fact or in effect.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for distinguishing the contract from prohibited wagers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn action was brought to recover damages for breach of a contract concerning sums collected as a purse, prize, or premium earned by a race horse. The …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lottery cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— An action was brought to recover damages for the breach of a contract as to sums collected “as a purse, prize or premium,” earned by a race horse. The declaration was demurred to on the ground that the contract is a gaming contract, agreement or device in violation of the statute. This demurrer was overruled and the defendant failing to further plead, final judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, to which the defendant took writ of error. Chapter 6188, Acts of 1911,. provides that “whoever stakes, bets or wagers any money or other thing of value upon the result of any trial or contest of skill, speed or power or endurance of man or beast,” etc., shall be punished as prescribed. A “purse, prize or premium” is not equivalent to a “stake, bet or wager,” and the facts appearing in the declaration do not show them to be similar in fact or in effect. Nor do the facts set up show a violation of Section 3584, General Statutes, 1906, forbidding games of chance with dice, cards, numbers, hazard or other gambling device. The facts set up do not show a lottery forbidden by Section 3585, General Statutes, 1906.
Judgment affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pompano Horse Club, Inc. v. State ex rel. John M. Bryan, 93 Fla. 415 (Fla. 1927)…course is material only [*449] for the purpose of determining the situs of the nuisance to be abated. See. Exchange Kennel Club v. Daugherty, 281 S. W. Rep. 826; People v. Weithoff, 16 N. W. Rep. 442; 27 C. J. 978 (56). The case of Johns v. Smith, 77 Fla. 398, 81 South. Rep. 514, cited by appellants, is not at all analogous to the case now before us. In Johns v. Smith the owner of a horse, by what appears to be a valid and bona fide lease, leased his horse to another, together with the right to enter sai…
-
City OF Miami Beach v. The Miami Beach Improvement Co., 153 Fla. 107 (Fla. 1943)…irmative defenses and the burden of establishing each, under our system, was on the defendant below. See Baylarian v. Tunnicliffe, 105 Fla. 484, 141 So. 609; City of Tarpon Springs v. Smith, 81 Fla. 479, 88 So. 613; Lonergan v. Peebles, 77 Fla. 188, 81 So. 514. The courts of Florida have defined a common law dedication as a setting apart of land for public use, and to constitute such a dedication there must be an intention by the owner clearly indicated by his words or act to dedicate the land to the pub…
-
Creash v. State, 131 Fla. 111 (Fla. 1938)…“stake, bet or wager” which is essential to constitute gambling, that a contest for a “purse, prize, or premium” is not gambling but is essem daily a game of skill because of the element, of skill involved in the result. Johns v. Smith, 77 Fla. 398, 81 So. 514; Pompano Horse Club v. State, 93 Fla. 415, 111 So. 801; Reinmiller v. State, 93 Fla. 462, 111 So. 633; are relied on to support this contention. It is quite true that in these cases we defined a “purse, prize, or premium” as something of value offe…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence