non-customercaMot acquire. If et HonorableR L. Lsttimore,Page 3, (WW- 840)
any time e premiumof any kind is allowedthe customerover the non- : customer,the elementof considerationIs presentand there is a lottery.
Good will and patronageof the persons favoredwith the coupons Is not considerationpaid, for the purposeof determiningif there is a lottery. Brice v. State,242 S.W.2d 433 (1951). Also see AttorneyGeneral's OpinionWW-652.
In Featherstonev. IndependentServiceStetionAss'n, 10 S.W.!d 124 (Tex. Civ. App. 19281, the court said:,
'1.. . While dealers,under the new plan,.di.s-~, tributedticketsto non-customerses well as to customers,it seems that the schemewas to distri- bute tickets,in the main, to customers;. . .l(
The courtswill look throughany subterfugewhich tries to hide the elementof consideration.
Insofares W-355 holds that e considerationis presentby virtue of good will and patronage,it Is in conflictwith the Brice case and the impliedholdingin &S-94, and WW-355, ia overruledto theextent of such con- flict.
SUMMARY
1. AttorneyGeneral'sOpinionNo. MS-94 is a valid statementof the laws of thie St&e relatingto lotteries.
2. AttorneyGeneral'sOpinionNo. i&i-355 is overruledinsofaras,It finds con- siderationarisingfrom the good will of the participantsof the plan.
Yours very truly,
WILL WILSON AttorneyGeneralof Texas
wk~+ By: Cecil Cammack,Jr. Assistant CC:aw . . .
Eonorab+eR. L. Lattimore,Page 4. (W-840)
APPROVED:
OPINIONCOMMITTEE:
W. V. Gappert,'Chairman
Msrvin Bmwn T'& ihrrus CharlesD. Cebaniss James Parris
REVIEWEDFORTESATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LeonardPassmore