Crippen v. Mint Sales Co.

11 Citing cases

  1. Rouse v. Sisson

    199 So. 777 (Miss. 1941)   Cited 7 times
    In Rouse v. Sisson, 190 Miss. 276, 199 So. 777, 132 A.L.R. 998, the device involved was an electric coin-operated machine generally referred to as an I.Q. or Intelligent Quotient machine.

    To make a lottery three ingredients must be present — consideration, chance, and prize. State ex rel. Home Planners Depository v. Hughes, 28 A.L.R. 1319; R.J. Williams Furniture Co. v. McComb Chamber of Commerce, 147 Miss. 649, 112 So. 579; Crippen v. Mint Sales Co., 139 Miss. 87, 103 So. 503; Redd v. Simmons, 175 Miss. 402, 167 So. 65. Appellant contends there is sufficient element of chance to call this machine a gambling device.

  2. State v. Katzberg

    428 P.2d 170 (Or. 1967)

    The imagination of the manufacturers of coin-operated gambling devices in attempting to circumvent criminal statutes has produced a wealth of judicial decisions on the definition of a "slot machine" or "similar device." Two of such decisions in accord with our views are Crippen v. Mint Sales Co., 139 Miss. 87, 103 S 503 (1925), and People v. Axelrod, 130 N.Y. Supp 2d 301 (1954). In the former case a statute prohibited the operation of any "slot machine or similar device."

  3. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. McNamara

    817 F.2d 368 (5th Cir. 1987)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that the class of taxpayers, only transportation and communication utilities, was unnecessarily small to be generally applicable

    Where the language of those laws is clear, we are not free to replace it with an unenacted legislative intent.").See Crippen v. Mint Sales Co., 139 Miss. 87, 103, 103 So. 503, 505 (1925) (Ethridge, J., dissenting): [I]t would be a dangerous undertaking for the court, [even] if it had the power[,] to undertake the job of correcting legislative mistakes and follies, for there is much in the statutes of the past dozen years evidencing midgetminded statesmen and much of folly.

  4. Mills v. Agnew

    286 F. Supp. 107 (D. Md. 1968)   Cited 2 times

    Ah Sin v. Wittman, 198 U.S. 500, 25 S.Ct. 756, 49 L.Ed. 1142; Marvin v. Trout, 199 U.S. 212, 26 S.Ct. 31, 50 L.Ed. 157. It has been declared by the Supreme Court of Mississippi that slot machines are gambling devices and prior to the present act their operation was prohibited. Crippen v. Mint Sales Company, 139 Miss. 87, 103 So. 503; Atkins v. State, 178 Miss. 804, 174 So. 52; Redd v. Simmons, 175 Miss. 402, 167 So. 65. By virtue of its police powers a state is permitted to declare that certain types of property shall have no property rights, and this announcement of the law is upheld by practically every state in the Union. All property or equipment that is used for gambling purposes may be confiscated and there is no property right in such property.

  5. Farr v. O'Keefe

    27 F. Supp. 216 (S.D. Miss. 1939)   Cited 9 times

    Ah Sin v. Wittman, 198 U.S. 500, 25 S.Ct. 756, 49 L.Ed. 1142; Marvin v. Trout, 199 U.S. 212, 26 S.Ct. 31, 50 L.Ed. 157. It has been declared by the Supreme Court of Mississippi that slot machines are gambling devices and prior to the present act their operation was prohibited. Crippen v. Mint Sales Company, 139 Miss. 87, 103 So. 503; Atkins v. State, 178 Miss. 804, 174 So. 52; Redd v. Simmons, 175 Miss. 402, 167 So. 65. By virtue of its police powers a state is permitted to declare that certain types of property shall have no property rights, and this announcement of the law is upheld by practically every state in the Union. All property or equipment that is used for gambling purposes may be confiscated and there is no property right in such property.

  6. Mississippi Municipal Ass'n Inc. v. State

    390 So. 2d 986 (Miss. 1980)   Cited 3 times

    Finding as we do in favor of their constitutionality, we determine further that we, as a court, may not nullify the formulas for distribution therein contained or legislate another formula or formulas in place of those, or either of them, therein contained. Should we allow any of the further relief prayed, we would be put in the position of amending the legislature's solemn action in adopting these two statutes, and we are not empowered thus to do. Mississippi Constitution (1890), Article I, section 1; Crippen v. Mint Sales Company, 139 Miss. 87, 103 So. 503 (1925). The chancellor correctly sustained the appellees' general demurrer to appellants' amended bill of complaint, and we affirm his action in doing so.

  7. Morgan, et al. v. State, ex rel

    208 Miss. 185 (Miss. 1950)   Cited 17 times
    Stating that the rule of ejusdem generis "has been universally applied with some degree of strictness" and is "only a rule of construction to aid in arriving at the true intention of a statute or contract"

    It attracts the youth, gets their money, and educates them in the gambling spirit." Crippen v. Mint Sales Company, 139 Miss. 87, 103 So. 503. It is well known that slot machines are a more insidious evil influence than common gamblers, habitual crapshooters and the like.

  8. Atkins v. State

    174 So. 52 (Miss. 1937)   Cited 6 times
    In Atkins v. State, 178 Miss. 804, 174 So. 52, this Court held that a slot machine, played for a jackpot, operated by placing 5-cent coins in a slot and pulling a lever for which purchaser could get a piece of gum, or sometimes 10¢ or 15¢, was a "gambling" device under statute which made it unlawful to operate slot machines which did not indicate in advance what purchaser was to receive.

    The customer played for a "jackpot" containing a number of 5-cent pieces inclosed in a glass case, but no customer witness had ever won the "jackpot." By the evidence in this case, this slot machine was clearly a gambling device condemned by section 821, Code 1930. Crippen v. Mint Sales Co., 139 Miss. 87, 103 So. 503. The purchaser of a license to operate a slot machine, as in the case at bar, is definitely warned by section 250 of chapter 20, Gen., Loc. Priv. Laws of Mississippi, Extraordinary Session of 1935, that such license will not authorize him to violate this statute, and cannot create, in view of its plain language, an estoppel against prosecution for crime. As analogous, see the case of State ex rel. Melton v. Rombach, 112 Miss. 737, 73 So. 731.

  9. Marvin v. Sloan

    77 Mont. 174 (Mont. 1926)   Cited 2 times

    1. Slot vending machine as gambling device, see notes in 121 Am. St. Rep. 703; 20 Ann. Cas. 133; 38 A.L.R. 703; 20 L.R.A. (n.s.) 242. See, also, 12 R.C.L. 730. v. State, 178 Ind. 568, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 172, 42 L.R.A. (n.s.) 720, 99 N.E. 806; Commonwealth v. Gritten, 180 Ky. 446, 202 S.W. 884; Welch v. Commonwealth, 179 Ky. 125, 200 S.W. 371; State v. Googin, 117 Me. 102, 102 A. 970; State v. Johnson, 15 Okla. Cr. 460, 177 P. 926; State v. Ellis, 200 Iowa, 1228, 206 N.W. 105; Crippen v. Mint Sales Co., 139 Miss. 78, 103 So. 503; Zatt v. Milton, 96 N.J. Eq. 576, 126 A. 29; Pure Mint Co. v. Labarre, 96 N.J. Eq. 186, 125 A. 105; Cagle v. State, 18 Ala. App. 553, 93 So. 206; Sheetz v. State, 156 Ark. 255, 245 S.W. 815; Griste v. Burch, 112 S.C. 369, 99 S.E. 703; Brockett v. State, 33 Ga. App. 57, 125 S.E. 513; Tonahill v. Molony, 156 La. 753, 101 So. 130; State v. Certain Gambling Instruments, 46 R.I. 347, 128 A. 12; State v. Krauss (Ohio), 151 N.E. 183. The use of the machine is also prohibited as a lottery.

  10. Miss. Gaming Comm. v. Six Elect. Video

    2000 CA 422 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 8 times
    Assuming arguendo that "the Gaming Control Act definition of [‘games’] is applicable to the criminal statute" and stating that "[o]nly if that definition overrides established interpretations of the criminal statute would we need to make a holding regarding its applicability"

    Without the many embellishments in the present statute, this prohibited a "slot machine" but not a vending machine that indicated in advance what the user was to receive. The Supreme Court found that a machine that dispensed mint candy with each play along with an occasional bonus of from two to twenty trade checks was illegal. Crippen v. Mint Sales Co., 139 Miss. 87, 103 So. 503 (1925). The Court held "taking the play as a whole, the machine does not indicate in advance what the player will get on each and all operations of the machine, and it is not the kind of vending machine that the Legislature intended to exempt in the state."