State ex rel. Prout v. Nebraska Home Co.

92 N.W. 763, 66 Neb. 349, 1902 Neb. LEXIS 469
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 19, 1902
DocketNo. 12,613
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 92 N.W. 763 (State ex rel. Prout v. Nebraska Home Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Prout v. Nebraska Home Co., 92 N.W. 763, 66 Neb. 349, 1902 Neb. LEXIS 469 (Neb. 1902).

Opinion

Sedgwick;, J.

This is an information in the nature of quo warranto to annul the corporate existence of defendant and oust it of its corporate powers, franchises and privileges. To the answer of the defendant the attorney general filed a general demurrer. The answer alleges that defendant has been and is entering into contracts with various parties in pursuance of its franchise. The terms of these contracts are set out in full in the answer. The principal questions presented and discussed by counsel are: First. Do these contracts contain the elements of a lottery? Second. Are they unlawful as against public policy? By the terms of the contract the company “agrees and undertakes to assist the said holder of this contract in purchasing and paying for a home.” The holder agrees to pay $3 for the “com[371]*371pany’s services in registering and issuing each application and contract” and “to pay to the company, at the home office of the company, in Qmaha,- Nebraska, $1.35 each month, on or before the last day thereof, from the date hereof until this contract shall mature as hereinafter described.” After the contract matures, the amount of the monthly payments is increased to $5.35, and continues “until the holder shall have paid into the home fund, as herein provided, the total sum of one thousand ($1,000) dollars, or such fractional part of said sum as shall he fur- • nished for him by the company. Five dollars of said sum of $5.35, so paid, shall be placed by the company in the home fund, as hereinbefore described, and 35 cents thereof, ■ is in payment for the services of the company.” The contract also provides:

“First. Said company shall number and date all contracts issued in regular numerical order as applications are received at the home office, and shall keep a record thereof, showing the date and serial number of each contract.
“Sixth. This contract shall be deemed to be matured within the meaning hereof, when there shall be, over and above what is required to be paid out on contracts of lower serial number than this contract, either, first, an income of fifty ($50) dollars per month due said home fund from contract-holders; or second, an amount of money in said home fund which, when added to the income so due from contract-holders for a period of twenty months, will equal one thousand ($1,000) dollars.
“Seventh. When this contract matures, the company agrees on each and every month thereafter, for twenty months, to pay out of the said home fund the sum of fifty ($50) dollars, in assisting the holder to purchase a home, to pay off a mortgage on a home owned by the holder, or to erect a dwelling-house on a lot belonging to a holder, as said holder may prefer.
“It is understood and agreed that the holder shall select property of the value of one thousand ($1,000) dollars, [372]*372on the basis of said payments thereon of fifty dollars ($50) per month, and thereupon the company shall immediately proceed to investigate title and value of the property, and, as soon as possible, notify the holder of its approval or disapproval of the holder’s selection. * * *
“If the company approves the selection, it shall immediately cause the property selected to be purchased, and put the holder in possession thereof, on the terms and conditions hereinafter contained.”

1. Does this scheme involve the elements of a lottery? To constitute a lottery, there must be a prize offered and the payment of something for a chance to obtain it. The ■attorney general has furnished the court with an “expert’s table,” which is derived from a computation based upon the issuing of contracts upon one thousand applications received at the same time, and each holder paying his in-stalments according to his agreement. We do not understand that defendant’s attorneys deny the accuracy of the result obtained upon the basis assumed, and it appears that the twenty-two holders of the lowest numbered contracts would get their first instalments, respectively, ■ within the first twenty-month period after the contracts were made, and would receive the full sum of $1,000 within the next twenty-month period thereafter; whereas the holder of contract numbered 1,000, although making his payments monthly, would not have any return from his investment until more than seventy years from the time he took his contract and began payment. The advantage of the fortunate holder of the early number is manifest. To obtain such a preference is to obtain something of value. “It is idle to say that a sum or an obligation for a sum due and payable to-day or at an early day is of no more value than an obligation for an equal amount, without interest,payable at a remote and indefinite time.” MacDonald

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

Related

State v. Coats
74 P.2d 1102 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1937)
Retail Section of Chamber of Commerce v. Kieck
257 N.W. 493 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1934)
State ex rel. Sorensen v. Ak-Sar-Ben Exposition Co.
226 N.W. 705 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1929)
State Ex Rel. Home Planners Depository v. Hughes
253 S.W. 229 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1923)
Gray v. Montgomery
204 P. 1029 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1922)
Fisher v. State
14 Ohio App. 355 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1921)
Enos v. Hanff
145 N.W. 244 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1914)
United States v. Purvis
195 F. 618 (N.D. Georgia, 1912)
Russell v. Equitable Loan & Security Co.
58 S.E. 881 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
State ex rel. Hathorn v. United States Express Co.
104 N.W. 556 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1905)
People ex rel. Ellison v. Lavin
93 A.D. 292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
Mann v. German-American Investment Co.
97 N.W. 600 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 N.W. 763, 66 Neb. 349, 1902 Neb. LEXIS 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-prout-v-nebraska-home-co-neb-1902.