Case Name: M'Gimpsey and Wife vs. Booker and others
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1833-03
Citations: 5 Yer. 139
Docket Number: 
Parties: M’Gimpsey and Wife vs. Booker and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 139–142

Head Matter:
M’Gimpsey and Wife vs. Booker and others.
The commissioners of a lottery authorized by law, may correct the drawing by the file of tickets preserved, and the drawing will be a good one.
The ticket last drawn out of the number box, will be considered the last drawn ticket, though a blank remain in the prize and blank boxes, if there was no fraud.
A bill in equity will lie to compel the managers of a lottery to adjudge a prize to a person entitled to receive it.
If by a reference to the list of the drawing, or the files of tickets preserved, the'managers can discover when a mistake occurred, they may correct it.
The act of 1824, ch. 33, authorizing the drawing of a lottery in Columbia, is merely directory, and the drawing will be a good one, though the managers were not sworn a second time, though the clerks were not sworn, and though one of the managers was absent, if there was no fraud, and a court of equity will enforce it.
In the year 1824, an act of assembly was passed, authorizing the drawing of a lottery, for the purpose of building a Masonic Hall in the town of Columbia; Booker, M5G-uire, Nelson, Grove and Dale were appointed managers. By the second section, they were required, before they proceed with the lottery, to enter into bond with security, &c. The third section says, the managers shall take an oath fairly and impartially to manage the lottery, and shall, under the inspection of justices of the peace, put the numbers, &c. into the wheel, and shall appoint two clerks, who shall be sworn, &c. to keep an account of the drawing of the lottery. The fourth section constitutes a majority a quorum, and gives them general powers about the lottery.
A scheme was proposed, of which a house and lot in Columbia were the highest prize, and to that prize the last drawn number was entitled. The managers, soon after the passage of the act, took the oath prescribed by the act, and gave bond and security. In drawing the scheme now un(Jer consideration, the numbers and the blanks and prizes were regularly put into the boxes by the managers, but not under the inspection of two justices of the peace. Two clerks were appointed to keep an account of the drawing, but no oath was taken by them. The lottery was fairly drawn, and no impeachment of the honesty of any person whatever; but when the last number was drawn out of the number box, it was discovered there was a blank still remaining in the prize and blank boxes, which by subsequent investigation, is clearly shown to have been produced by not drawing out this blank to some precedent number, and could make no difference in the result. The last drawn ticket belonged to complainant. Two of the managers were there, all the time, and one was absent from time to time. The managers said there was no drawing. The managers in their answer state all the facts, and the lottery ticket holders insist there must be a new drawing. 1st. Because the managers were not sworn the second time. 2d. Because the clerks were not sworn. 3d. Because there was a mistake in drawing the numbers; and lastly, because all the managers were not present. The Chancellor dismissed the bill, and complainants appealed to this court.
F. B. Fogg, for complainants.
For the complainants we say, that the act was merely directory to the managers, and when they have once taken the oath and given bond and security as required by the act, the Lottery is established- by law; and if fairness, impartiality and an equal distribution of chances have existed, it is of no consequence whether all the minute requisitions are complied with by the managers. If the clerks acted fairly and honestly without oath, they were clerks defacto, and the oath was only intended as a moral tie to ensure their fidelity. See Bacon’s Abr. title Officer: 16 Viner, 113, title Officer 6, 4. .If any injury was sustained by the non-compliance on the part of the managers, they are responsible either on the bond or a special action on the case.
2d. Complainants were the holders of the last drawn ticket, and entitled to the highest prize. Brent and others vs. Davis, 10 Wheaton, 395: Brunstead and others vs. SchinoLte, 6 Durnford and East, 646: 2 Binney, 301.
R. C. Foster, for defendants.

Opinion:
Peck, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
There is no fraud pretended in this case, the commissioners, in drawing the lottery, having acted in good faith. Does there appear such a mistake as makes it indispensable that for the sake of justice amongst the ticket holders there should be a redrawing? A majority of us are of opinion there is not. Books were kept of the drawing, the tickets were strung in separate files in the order drawn, by which mistakes could be rectified. A. mistake didintervene, but was rectified by the files of tickets; this was part of the drawing, so were all the acts of the commissioners in making calculations, until the truth was arrived at. So soon as it was found that the 640th drawn ticket produced the mistake, a clue was given to correct the whole list by, so that justice would be done to every ticket holder, according to the drawing as corrected by the files. This last drawn ticket is wholly out of dispute, if the drawing is to stand; because, if entitled as a stationary prize, it is as to it, useless to enquire what or whether any ticket stood opposite to it in the wheel; being the last, made it the prize. As to the other objections, that the clerks were not sworn, and that two justices were not present, these matters in the act were directory; and though no doubt it was expected the act would have been pursued more strictly, yet, as the evils complained of are not imputable to the want of this strictness, in the absence of fraud even imputed, it is no ground to set the lottery aside. The peace, good order and morals of society require that an r , , , U end should be put to these chances.
The authorities before us justify granting the relief sought; in many of their features they are strikingly analogous. 10 Wheat. 395: 6 Durnford and East, 646: 2 Bin. 301.
Decree reversed.