Case Name: Samuel Gilbert and Another versus John Williams and Others
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1812-03
Citations: 7 Tyng 476
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel Gilbert and Another versus John Williams and Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 396–399

Head Matter:
Samuel Gilbert and Another versus John Williams and Others.
The holders of prize tickets in a lottery may demand the prize money of all the managers, although the tickets are respectively subscribed by one only; but where such- holders had given up the tickets to one of the managers, taking his personal promise for the amount due upon them, they were held to have thereby relinquished their claim on the other managers, and to have a right of action only against him whose receipt they had taken for the tickets.
The declaration was in case, and alleged that the defendants, with one Phillips. Payson, since deceased, on the 6th of January 1809, in consideration that the plaintiffs had drawn, before that time, sundry prizes in the Harvard College lottery, of which the defendants were then and there managers, and which prizes by law the defendants, with the said Payson, deceased, were liable to pay to the plaintiffs, amounting in the whole to the sum of 1392 dollars, and in consideration that the plaintiffs, at the request of the defendants and of the said Payson, had before that * time, on the same day, delivered the same tickets to said John Gardner, [one of the defendants and] one of said managers, promised the plaintiffs to pay them the same sum on demand. — And for that the defendants, with one Phillips Payson, since deceased, at, &c., on, &c., in consideration that the plaintiffs had on the same day, at the special instance and request of the defendants and of said Pay-son, delivered to them prize tickets in the Harvard College lottery, which by law entitled the plaintiffs to receive from the defendants one other sum of 1392 dollars, promised the plaintiffs to pay them the same sum on demand. — There was also a count for money had and received by the defendants to the use of the plaintiffs.
The action was tried at the last November term in this county, -upon the general issue of non assumpsit, before Parker, J., who reports the following facts as proved at the trial: —
The defendants, with Phillips Payson, deceased, were duly ap pointed managers of Harvard College lottery, agreeable to a contract in the case between them and the corporation of the college, dated June 16th, 1806.
On the 6th of January, 1809, the plaintiffs having, as their own property, a number of tickets in the fourth class of said lottery, among which were prizes to the amount of 1392 dollars, all of which tickets were signed by the defendant Gardner alone, delivered the same to the said Gardner, without receiving any money from him, taking his receipt therefor as follows, viz: — “Boston 6 Jan., 1809. Received of Mess. Gilbert Dean prize tickets in Harvard College lottery, amounting to thirteen hundred and ninety-two dollars, to be paid them on demand.
“ John Gardner, Manager.”
All the managers had joined in advertising the scheme of the fourth class of the lottery. Tickets were signed severally by the managers; and a separate account was kept by each with the treasurer of the college; and on the 25th of March, 1811, an account was settled between the * treasurer and Mr. Tillinghast, (one of the defendants,) in which the latter was allowed a credit for prize tickets signed by Gardner, according to Gardner’s receipt to him. The corporation of the college declined to be answerable for any claims the plaintiffs had on Gardner.
Before the plaintiffs delivered these tickets to Gardner, they applied to Mr. Payson, to be allowed the amount of the tickets, who replied, that there would be no difficulty in getting the money of Gardner. The treasurer of the college stated that he settled an account with Gardner in July, 1810, and that in settling, each manager produced his prize tickets, and was credited for the amount of them. A separate bond was given by each manager to the college. The fourth class was finished drawing July 20th, 1808; and by the scheme prizes below 100 dollars were payable in thirty days, and those above that sum in sixty days after the drawing was completed.
A verdict was taken for the plaintiffs by consent, to the amount of the tickets and interest, which was to be set aside, and a nonsuit entered, if, upon the above facts, the opinion of the Court should be, that the managers were not all liable in law.
The cause stood over to this term for argument; and now,
Bigelow, for the plaintiffs,
contended that the managers of the lottery were jointly responsible to the holders of prize tickets. They advertised jointly, and it was not known that they severed in giving bonds, or in accounting with the college, for whose benefit the lottery was instituted. They signed the tickets promiscuously, nor did a purchaser of a ticket ever consider himself dependent, for any prize his ticket might draw, on the personal ability of the individual manager, by whom such ticket might be subscribed. The money which the plaintiffs demand in this action is the amount of prizes dawn against the tickets held by them. It is true they lodged the tickets with Mr. Gardner, and took his acknowledgment for them; but they were still payable by any or all of the managers. Nor can it be * presumed that the plaintiffs, without any possible motive, should have intended to exchange a valid claim against all the managers for the responsibility of one only. Mr. Gardner signed the receipt to them as manager, or as one of the persons who were jointly liable. And if this receipt should be considered as entitling the plaintiffs to an action against him personally, yet it does not merge the original joint promise of the managers.
Jackson, for the defendants,
did not controvert the position, that all the managers were originally liable for the payment of prizes in the lottery; but he insisted that in the present case, when the plaintiffs gave up the prize tickets in their possession to Gardner, and took his personal security for the amount due on them, they gave up their right of action against the managers, and gave a new credit to Gardner, who thus became accountable to them, instead of the managers jointly. It may reasonably be supposed from this transaction, that there existed a private account between Gardner and the plaintiffs, on which the latter might be indebted to the amount of these prizes. The managers and the college were obliged to allow to Gardner this amount, on his producing the tickets; he was discharged for that sum, and if this was all he was answerable for, his bond was of course cancelled.
1 Burr. 9.—1 W. Black. 65. — 1 Chitty on Pleading, 34. —5 Esp. Rep. 122 — 1 Esp. Rep. 129. — Ibid. 246. — 3 East’s Rep. 147.

Opinion:
By the Court.
This case must be decided on the particular facts reported by the judge. There can be no question, that the managers were jointly responsible to the plaintiffs, while they retained the prize tickets, which constituted the evidence of their demand But when the plaintiffs delivered the tickets to Mr. Gardner, and took his personal promise for the amount due upon them, they relinquished their claim on the other managers, and lost their remedy on the tickets; having exchanged it for a right of actk n against Gardner. The verdict must be set aside, and the plaintiffs be called
Plaintiffs nonsuit.