State v. Countdown, Inc.

319 So. 2d 924, 1975 La. LEXIS 4525
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided July 25, 1975·No. No. 55878·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

DIXON, Justice.

The attorney general brought this action by the State of Louisiana to annul the charter of Countdown, Inc. and to enjoin its operation. From adverse judgments dismissing plaintiff’s suit in the district court and the Court of Appeal (State of Louisiana v. Countdown, Inc., La.App., 305 So.2d 634), the State applied for writs to this court, alleging two errors:

“I. It was error to find that the business activity of Countdown is not an activity prohibited to corporations by Louisiana law.
“II. It was error to find that the activity of Countdown is not an off-track betting operation prohibited by Louisiana law.”

The first specification of error is based on the prohibition of C.C. 441:

“A corporation can not be administrator, guardian or testamentary executor, nor fulfill any other office of personal trust. A corporation can not be imprisoned, for its existence being ideal, nobody can arrest or confine it.”

The second specification of error is based on the contention that Countdown, Inc. violates R.S. 4:147 and 149, which prohibit wagering on horse races except by a licensed parimutuel arrangement conducted in the “race meeting grounds” or the “enclosure of the licensee.”

Suit was filed February 11, 1974; trial was on March 15, 1974. The ledger sheet for Countdown introduced in evidence showed operations were conducted on twelve days from November 28, 1973 through January 24, 1974. The gross income totaled $611.00, for which the “messenger fee” was $61.10, derived from an estimated three hundred transactions.

Another exhibit consisted of a collection of forms — an original and two carbon copies in each set. To each set of forms a Fair Grounds betting receipt is stapled. That receipt and the form show the date, the race, the number of the horse and the amount of the bet to win, place or show. The forms were kept for fourteen days; they contained printed “Rules and Regulations” on the reverse side of each sheet.1

[926] In the event of a winner, the testimony is that the bettor, on production of the proper receipt, would be given his winning ticket to cash at the track. A bettor who wanted Countdown to retrieve his winnings from the track could sign another form authorizing that transaction. There was only one winner in the course of the operation — an undercover policewoman.

Three police agents testified about the operation of Countdown. There is no dispute about the evidence. The only evidence offered shows that Countdown operated a messenger service only, and did not wager. It took money from customers, transported it to the track, returned with betting tickets obtained at the track, and surrendered the tickets to customers on demand.

Such an operation cannot be characterized as an “office of personal trust” and the courts below were correct in holding C.C. 441 inapplicable.

[927] Nor is there any merit to the State’s contention that Countdown’s operation constitutes betting at an off-track site prohibited by R.S. 4:149 and 171. Countdown did not bet or wager. It accepted money, carried to the track, placed the bet at pari-mutuel windows and returned the betting ticket to its office, to be retrieved by the bettor. It takes two to wager, and until Countdown reached the track with the bettor’s money and bought the ticket at the pari-mutuel window, no bet was made.

For these reasons, the judgments of the Court of Appeal and the district court are affirmed.

SANDERS, C. J., and MARCUS, J., dissent and assign written reasons. SUMMERS, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by MARCUS, J.

Footnotes

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

State v. Countdown, Inc., 319 So. 2d 924, 1975 La. LEXIS 4525 (La. 1975).

319 So. 2d 924 (State v. Countdown, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Finish Line Express, Inc. v. City of Chicago
375 N.E.2d 526 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1978)
Thomas v. Commonwealth
563 S.W.2d 491 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1978)