Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffdefendantjurisdictionmotioncorporationmotion to dismiss
contractplaintiffdefendantstatuteverdictwillcorporation

Related Cases

Love v. Frontier Ins. Co., 526 F.Supp.2d 859
View Case »
Salazar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 370 F.Supp.2d 105
View Case »
Saporita v. Litner, 371 Mass. 607, 358 N.E.2d 809
View Case »
Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 360, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 500
View Case »
In re Estate of Toland, 180 Wash.2d 836, 329 P.3d 878
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ormes v. Dauchy, nan

Facts

The plaintiff and his partner, Niles, procured a contract for advertising from the defendants, who were advertising agents. They were to receive ten percent of the contract price for advertising work done for a Virginia corporation. The defendants claimed the contract was illegal because it involved advertising for a lottery, which is prohibited under New York law. However, the exact terms of the contract were not presented in evidence, leading to uncertainty about its legality.

The defendants set up as a defense, that by the contract the defendants agreed to print and publish, in various newspapers in the State of New York and elsewhere, notices showing where tickets could be purchased in a lottery, owned and conducted by the corporation referred to, and claimed that the contract was illegal and void under the statutes of this State relating to lotteries, and that no recovery can be had for that reason.

Issue

Whether the contract made by the plaintiff and his associate with the defendants for the publication of a lottery advertisement was illegal and void under New York law.

The question to be determined, is whether an illegal contract was made by the plaintiff and his associate, Niles, with the defendants, for the publication of a lottery advertisement, in violation of the statutes of the State of New York, which prevented a recovery.

Rule

The court applied the principle that a contract is not considered illegal if it can be construed in a way that is consistent with the laws of the state where it was made, and that the New York legislature has no extra-territorial jurisdiction.

The publication, therefore, outside of the State was not within the prohibition of the statute of this State; and as there is no proof that the law of any other State was violated, and as the law will not presume an agreement void as illegal, or against public policy, when it is capable of a construction which would make it consistent with the laws and valid, it cannot be considered as illegal.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented and determined that there was no clear proof that the contract included advertisements in New York newspapers, which would have made it illegal. The defendants did not produce the contract, and the evidence suggested that the advertising could have been limited to publications outside New York. Therefore, the court found that the contract could be valid under the laws of Virginia and not necessarily void under New York law.

It being thus uncertain as to the exact nature of the contract, and no evidence being given of a publication in any newspaper in the State of New York, and proof being given to show that the monthly bills rendered by the defendants for the publication were far less than what was originally stated to be the charge for all the newspapers on the list, it was a question of fact for the consideration of the jury whether the contract embraced any newspapers published within the State of New York.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied and that the contract was not illegal.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed in the case because the court found that the contract was not illegal under New York law, as it did not definitively include advertisements in New York newspapers.

At the Circuit the judge directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff to which the defendants excepted.

You must be