From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

International Mutoscope Reel Co. v. Valentine

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 2, 1936
3 N.E.2d 453 (N.Y. 1936)

Summary

In International Mutoscope Reel Co. v. Valentine (271 N.Y. 622) the owners of machines known as "crane," "claw" and "digger" type brought action against the police commissioner to have it determined that such machines were not violative of sections 977, 982 and 1376 of the Penal Law, and were not susceptible of being used for gambling, lottery, or any purpose in violation of the Penal Law. This court hel that "the case is not one for a declaratory judgment."

Summary of this case from Reed v. Littleton

Opinion

Argued May 18, 1936

Decided June 2, 1936

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Arthur J.W. Hilly, Robert H. Sterling and Joseph Sterling for appellants.

Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel ( Paxton Blair, Alvin McKinley Sylvester and Charles C. Weinstein of counsel), for respondent.


Judgment affirmed, with costs, upon the ground that the case is not one for a declaratory judgment. No opinion.

Concur: CRANE, Ch. J., O'BRIEN, HUBBS, CROUCH, LOUGHRAN and FINCH, JJ.; LEHMAN, J., taking no part.


Summaries of

International Mutoscope Reel Co. v. Valentine

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 2, 1936
3 N.E.2d 453 (N.Y. 1936)

In International Mutoscope Reel Co. v. Valentine (271 N.Y. 622) the owners of machines known as "crane," "claw" and "digger" type brought action against the police commissioner to have it determined that such machines were not violative of sections 977, 982 and 1376 of the Penal Law, and were not susceptible of being used for gambling, lottery, or any purpose in violation of the Penal Law. This court hel that "the case is not one for a declaratory judgment."

Summary of this case from Reed v. Littleton

In International Mutoscope Reel Co. v. Valentine (271 N.Y. 622), a case much like this one and involving alleged gambling machinery, the plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring that their machines, known as "crane", "claw" and "digger", did not come within the provisions of the Penal Law. The court gave the contention short shrift by saying (supra, p 623) "that the case is not one for a declaratory judgment."

Summary of this case from Snap 'N' Pops, Inc. v. Dillon
Case details for

International Mutoscope Reel Co. v. Valentine

Case Details

Full title:INTERNATIONAL MUTOSCOPE REEL CO., INC., et al., Appellants, v. LEWIS J…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 2, 1936

Citations

3 N.E.2d 453 (N.Y. 1936)
3 N.E.2d 453

Citing Cases

Amusement Enterprises v. Fielding

The machine as constructed is not a gambling device. This is the essential difference between this case and…

Snap 'N' Pops, Inc. v. Dillon

No doubt criminal prosecutions are always annoying and may disarrange the defendants' income and finances but…