Goodhart v. the Mission Publishing Co.

Action for Money Obtained by Fraud—Newspaper Subscription Prize Contest—False Statement as to Condition of Votes— Guaranty—Public Policy.—An action against a publishing company engaged in a newspaper subscription prize contest, to recover the sum of $300 paid to the defendant, on the ground that it was obtained by the fraud of its agents in charge of the contest, by falsely stating the condition of the votes upon the first prize, and that such payment would secure subscriptions sufficient to obtain the first prize over all contestants, and that it would be guaranteed, and that if the plaintiff did not obtain it the money would be refunded by the defendant, is tenable, and cannot be resisted on the ground that the contract was in fraud of the rights of other contestants, and against public policy.

Id.—Good Faith of Plaintiff—Absence of Fraud upon Other Contestants—Reliance upon Agreement to Refund.—Where it appears that the plaintiff is a young girl who acted in entire good faith, .and without any intention to do otherwise than to secure for herself sufficient votes by newspaper subscriptions to obtain the first prize in a manner which would be available to any other contestant, there is an entire absence of fraud upon her part upon the rights -of other contestants. Nor could the agreement to refund the money, if the first prize were not obtained, be in fraud of the rights of other contestants, though it is an agreement upon which the plaintiff might well have relied.

Id.—General Verdict for Plaintiff—Special Findings Based on Agreement With Subscription Agent—Improper Judgment on Special Findings.—Where the jury rendered a general verdict for plaintiff for the sum of $300 sued for, and also rendered a special verdict in affirmative response to special interrogatories as to all of the specific terms agreed to between the plaintiff and the agent of the defendant in charge of the subscription prize contest, and that plaintiff delivered the money in reliance upon that agreement, it is held that there is no inconsistency between the general and special verdicts, and that the court erred in granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the special verdict.

Id.—Immaterial Conditional Element in Contract With Agent.— The further element which appears to have entered into the agreement with the agent that in the event that plaintiff had not enough votes to secure her the first prize, defendant, “if necessary for that purpose, would deliver enough votes to insure her the first prize,” may be rejected from consideration, since, as determined by the special findings, the damage accrued to plaintiff by reason of the false representations as to the condition of the vote at the time she paid the $300 to the defendant.

Id.—Claim: of Defendant as to Unauthorized Act of Agent—Conclusiveness—Appeal of Plaintiff.—The averment of defendant that the agents who received from the plaintiff the $300 were not acting within the limits of their authority when they made the representations to the plaintiff, as charged, presents a question which it is held was settled adversely to the defendant by the verdict of the jury, and is not open to review in its favor on appeal of plaintiff from the judgment rendered for defendant on the special findings.