TAMPA JOCKEY CLUB, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. R. E. L. CHANCEY, AS COUNTY SOLICITOR FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld a conviction that a horse racing betting scheme violated state gambling laws, rejecting the argument that a refund clause eliminated the gambling nature of the transaction. The court held that accepting money as a deposit for wagering on horse races constitutes illegal gambling regardless of any refund option offered to dissatisfied bettors.
The refund clause does not eliminate the gambling nature of the scheme. A bet or wager occurs when money is deposited to purchase the certificate, and the operator becomes a custodian of unlawfully wagered money under Florida law. An agreement to refund dissatisfied patrons does not change the legal status or render lawful an otherwise unlawful gambling enterprise.
“The bet or wager on the result of the race under such a plan occurs when the money is deposited at the window for the purchase of the certificate which entitles the holder to participate in the purse created by the sale of such certificates in the event that the horse which the purchaser has selected shall win according to the place in the race selected by such purchaser”
Establishes the precise moment when the wager is made—at deposit of money, not at the race outcome
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTampa Jockey Club sold certificates at booths that entitled purchasers to participate in a purse created by certificate sales if their selected horse …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
This case involves the-same questions of law and like matters of fact as were presented in the ease, of Pompano Horse Club, Inc., et al. v. State ex rel. John M. Bryan, which was decided at this term of this Court, except that in the instant case it is contended that by reason of a notice posted at the booths where certificates were sold and probably also printed on the tickets in the following language, "It is distinctly agreed and understood that the holder of this certificate has donated the amount in money represented on reverse side hereof, same to be used by West Coast Amusement Company, Incorporated, to make up a purse, prize or premium to be contended for in the race for which this certificate was issued. It is further understood and agreed that the original donor of amount represented by this coupon, if dissatisfied with his donation, may within twenty minutes after the running of such race present this coupon at proper window and receive amount of his donation. This right is not transferable and not assignable, and only the original donor in person shall have the right secured. ’ ’
All features of gambling that might otherwise exist in operation of the plan under which such certificates are sold and redeemed were eliminated.
We cannot agree with this contention. The bet or wager on the result of the race under such a plan occurs when the money is deposited at the window for the purchase of the certificate which entitles the holder to participate in the purse created by the sale of such certificates in the event that the horse which the purchaser has selected shall win according to the place in the race selected by such purchaser; and the operator of the booth or ticket window through its agents then and there becomes the custodian or depositary of the money staked as denounced by Section 5514, Revised General Statutes of Florida. The fact that one engaged in the business of being custodian or depositary of money unlawfully bet or wagered may agree to refund to any dissatisfied patron the amount of his bet or wager will not change the status before the law of the one engaged •in such enterprise, nor render lawful the act which would otherwise be unlawful.
This ease should be affirmed on authority of the opinion in the case of Pompano TIorse Club, Inc., et al. v. State ex rel. John M. Bryan, supra, and it is so ordered. The supersedeas order heretofore entered herein is now vacated.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Terrell, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., dissents.