4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 47 (view source)
Revision as of 14:37, August 4, 2023
, August 4, 2023no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
* ''Castilleja v. Camero'', 414 S.W.2d 424, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6092186767625944942#p428 428] (Tex.1967) (J. Pope, dissenting) ("The majority has incorrectly identified the contract upon which plaintiff Severa Camero sued and must rely. The majority holds that the contract upon which plaintiff sued and recovered judgment was a Mexican contract where lotteries are legal. The contract between the lottery ticket owners and the Mexican National Lottery is one contract. The contract between the ticket holders themselves to share in and divide equally any winnings from the lottery is a distinct and separate contract. Plaintiff asserted no action against the Mexican National Lottery.") | * ''Castilleja v. Camero'', 414 S.W.2d 424, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6092186767625944942#p428 428] (Tex.1967) (J. Pope, dissenting) ("The majority has incorrectly identified the contract upon which plaintiff Severa Camero sued and must rely. The majority holds that the contract upon which plaintiff sued and recovered judgment was a Mexican contract where lotteries are legal. The contract between the lottery ticket owners and the Mexican National Lottery is one contract. The contract between the ticket holders themselves to share in and divide equally any winnings from the lottery is a distinct and separate contract. Plaintiff asserted no action against the Mexican National Lottery.") | ||
* ''Brice v. State'', 242 S.W.2d 433, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5207143765870185632#p435 435] (Tex.Crim.App. 1951) (" ... .") | * ''Brice v. State'', 242 S.W.2d 433, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5207143765870185632#p435 435] (Tex.Crim.App. 1951) ("The question of whether or not such plan is condemned as being against public policy by reason of Art. III, Sec. 47, of the Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St., is not for this court to decide. See City of Wink v. Griffith Amusement Co., 129 Tex. 40, 100 S.W.2d 695. Under the authorities mentioned, we must conclude that in the absence of any character of favoritism shown to customers, the lottery statute, Art. 654, P.C., is not violated under a plan whereby a merchant awards a prize or prizes by chance to a registrant without requiring any registrant to be a customer or to purchase merchandise or to do other than to register without charge at the store, though the donor may receive a benefit from the drawing in the way of advertising. The evidence is therefore insufficient to sustain the conviction.") | ||
* ''City of Wink v. Griffith Amusement Co.'', 100 S.W.2d 695, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/100_SW2_695.pdf#page=7 701] (Tex. 1936) ("If it be granted that the plan of defendant in error's 'Bank Night' was not a lottery because a charge was not made for the registration entitling one to participate in the drawing (and this is the only distinction which is here or could be made), then it clearly comes within the condemnatory terms of the Constitution, because it is a 'gift enterprise' involving the lottery principle, which the authorities hold is that principle by which something is to be given by chance. . . . Being condemned by the Constitution, it is against the 'public policy of the State.'") | * ''City of Wink v. Griffith Amusement Co.'', 100 S.W.2d 695, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/100_SW2_695.pdf#page=7 701] (Tex. 1936) ("If it be granted that the plan of defendant in error's 'Bank Night' was not a lottery because a charge was not made for the registration entitling one to participate in the drawing (and this is the only distinction which is here or could be made), then it clearly comes within the condemnatory terms of the Constitution, because it is a 'gift enterprise' involving the lottery principle, which the authorities hold is that principle by which something is to be given by chance. . . . Being condemned by the Constitution, it is against the 'public policy of the State.'") | ||