State Ex Inf. McKittrick v. Globe-Democrat

110 S.W.2d 705, 341 Mo. 862, 113 A.L.R. 1104, 1937 Mo. LEXIS 525
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedDecember 9, 1937
StatusPublished
Cited by47 cases

This text of 110 S.W.2d 705 (State Ex Inf. McKittrick v. Globe-Democrat) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Inf. McKittrick v. Globe-Democrat, 110 S.W.2d 705, 341 Mo. 862, 113 A.L.R. 1104, 1937 Mo. LEXIS 525 (Mo. 1937).

Opinion

ELLISON, J..

Quo warranto instituted in this court by the Attorney General to forfeit the charter of the respondent Globe-Democrat Publishing Company, a corporation, on the ground that at and prior to the filing of the information it was operating a lottery. The respondent publishes the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, a daily and Sunday newspaper. The alleged lottery, conducted by and advertised in that newspaper, was called the “Famous Names” contest. The respondent filed a return admitting it had conducted the contest bilt denying that the same was a lottery. To that return the relator filed a reply which was a general denial. The Honorable Fielding P. Stapleton of the Gentry County bar was appointed by this court as Special Commissioner to receive the testimony and evidence and to report his. findings of fact and conclusions of law. His report has been of great assistance to the court and we adopt substantially his statement of the facts — without quotation marks — adding, however, some further detailed facts because of the contentions made by the parties in their briefs filed after the report was presented.

Early in 1936 the respondent contracted with the Publishers’ Serv *864 ice Company- of New York to publish, in the Globe-Democrat the aforesaid “Famous Names” contest, which was copyrighted by the New York Post, one of several publications owned by Stearns Newspapers, the latter also controlling the Publishers’ Service Company. Under the contract the Publishers’ Service Company was to furnish and the Globe-Democrat was to publish a series of eighty-four cartoons, one each day for eighty-four consecutive days. The cartoons were prepared by Peter Arno, a widely known cartoonist, and consisted of drawings of persons, inanimate and living objects, together with various statements or exclamations made by the characters portrayed ; and under each cartoon was printed a list of words or names, one of which was to be chosen by the contestants as the best and most appropriate name for the cartoon. The prizes were to be awarded by a committee of five distinguished citizens of St. Louis. In the beginning the cartoons were comparatively simple and only a few names were appended thereto. As the contest proceeded they became more difficult and more names were printed under each. Toward the last as many as 180 names were suggested for some of the cartoons.

The rules of the contest having a bearing on the issues in this case were as follows:

“1. ‘Famous Names’ contest is open to every reader of The St. Louis Globe-Democrat with the exception of employees of The St. Louis Globe-Democrat and members of their families.
“2. Beginning Monday, February 3d, and continuing each day for-twelve weeks, The St. Louis Globe-Democrat will publish a Peter Arno cartoon. Bach cartoon will in some way suggest or represent a name. The name may be that of a person, city, state, nation, book, song or motion picture.
“3. The St. Louis Globe-Democrat will award a First Prize of $10,000.00 as part of $15,000.00 in prizes to the person or persons submitting the best or most appropriate name to each of the 84 cartoons and in all other ways conforming to these Official Eules. The person or persons submitting the best or most appropriate names t.o all 84 cartoons and otherwise complying with these Official Eules shall be eligible for First Prize. The person or persons submitting the next nearest correct solution to the 84 cartoons and otherwise complying with all these Official Eules shall be eligible for additional prizes in the order of the correctness of their answers.
“7. In order to qualify for a prize, the contestant is required to accompany each of the 12 series of answers with a remittance of 10 cents in coin in payment for a special print of the -week’s featured Peter Arno cartoon, purchase of which is a. condition for entering the contest. The Special Prints, suitable for framing, will be mailed to the contestant in one set, at the close of the contest.
“8. Any person upon entering the contest and by the submission *865 of answers, agrees to accept as final the decision of The Globe-Democrat and the contest manager on all matters affecting the conduct of the contest, the making of the awards, and procedure and policy, with regard to the acceptance of submissions during the entire contest.
“10. A contestant is permitted to submit as many sets of 84 cartoons as he or she chooses, provided same are properly qualified, and each will be judged as a unit, but no person will be a,warded more than one prize. When submitting additional sets of answers, all series must be identified as sets A, B, C, etc."

Before the contest started the respondent submitted to the Post Office Department the plan thereof together with the rules governing, and the same was approved as not being in violation of the postal laws. However, the cartoons with appended lists of names were not so submitted. Many of them had not yet been drawn and furnished to the respondent.

The publication of the cartoons in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat began on February 3, 1936, and was continued for eighty-four consecutive days, ending on April 26, 1936. At the outset the publication of the cartoons was accompanied by extravagant advertising, practically all of which was furnished by the Publishers’ Service Company. For instance in the issue of February 8 it was stated, “in a half hour, perhaps less, you can give yourself the opportunity to win $10,000 cash." On February 9 an advertisement said “your quick way to fortune.” And below that in smaller type, “time and again you read of the huge fortunes won by various contestants! Today the Globe-Democrat gives you this grand opportunity to win $10,000 cash. ’ ’ On the same page it was stated ‘ ‘ every one in your family, man, woman or child is eligible to enter and win. A child of eight years might win." In several subsequent advertisements, one as late as March 18, it was stated that any man, woman or child can win $10,000 cash. An advertisement on February 16 prominently proclaimed: “You deserve some easy money, $10,000' first prize," and further stated, “Anyone can win, man, woman or child. A child of 12 might easily be awarded the first prize itself — a $10,000 cash fortune. It requires no special skill, training or education." In addition to the advertisements in the Globe-Democrat some 400,000 “broadsides" or printed folders were distributed from house to house throughout the St. Louis Metropolitan area, and advertisements were run in 446 small town newspapers in the territory tributary to the city.

On February 27 representatives of the Better Business Bureau in St. Louis had a conference with officers of the respondent corporation in which the latter stated that the contest would become more difficult as it went on, the cartoons to be susceptible of several possible eon *866 struetions. At that time only about thirty-six of the eighty-four cartoons had been forwarded to the respondent by the Publishers’ Service Company — in other words the respondent had not then seen the last forty-eight cartoons and did not know what they would contain.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

California Attorney General Opinion 23-1001
California Attorney General Reports, 2025
Dew-Becker v. Wu
2020 IL 124472 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2020)
State v. $223,405.86
203 So. 3d 816 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2016)
Ex Parte Ted's Game Enterprises
893 So. 2d 376 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2004)
State Ex Rel. Tyson v. TED'S GAME ENTER.
893 So. 2d 355 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2002)
Opinion of the Justices
795 So. 2d 630 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2001)
Johnson v. Collins Entertainment Co.
508 S.E.2d 575 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1998)
Harris v. Missouri Gaming Commission
869 S.W.2d 58 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1994)
Opinion No. (1991)
Missouri Attorney General Reports, 1991
Opinion No. (1990)
Missouri Attorney General Reports, 1990
Tichenor v. Missouri State Lottery Commission
742 S.W.2d 170 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1988)
Barnes v. Bailey
706 S.W.2d 25 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1986)
Opinion No. 77-82 (1982)
Missouri Attorney General Reports, 1982
Opinion No. 146-78 (1978)
Missouri Attorney General Reports, 1978
Opinion No. 26-78 (1978)
Missouri Attorney General Reports, 1978
Ago
Florida Attorney General Reports, 1976
Morrow v. State
511 P.2d 127 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1973)
Seattle Times Co. v. Tielsch
495 P.2d 1366 (Washington Supreme Court, 1972)
Finster v. Keller
18 Cal. App. 3d 836 (California Court of Appeal, 1971)
Mobil Oil Corporation v. Danforth
455 S.W.2d 505 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 S.W.2d 705, 341 Mo. 862, 113 A.L.R. 1104, 1937 Mo. LEXIS 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-inf-mckittrick-v-globe-democrat-mo-1937.