Case Name: BRITT v. DAVIS BROS.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1907-03-04
Citations: 118 La. 597
Docket Number: No. 16,323
Parties: BRITT v. DAVIS BROS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 597–597

Head Matter:
(43 South. 248.)
No. 16,323.
BRITT v. DAVIS BROS.
(March 4, 1907.)
•Gaming — Illegal Employment — Recovery op Salary.
No action will lie on behalf of one who is ■employed by the year to manage a gambling establishment, and is discharged without cause before the expiration of the term, for the recovery of a share of the profits which he was to have received in lieu of salary.
[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 24, Gaming, § 29.]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; Thomas Fletcher Bell, Judge.
Action by W. Floyd Britt against Davis Bros. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Fullilove & Mills, for appellant. Sidney Levy Herold, for appellees.

Opinion:
MONROE, J.
Plaintiff alleges that he was employed to manage a cardroom, maintained in the rear of defendant's barroom in Shreveport, and to supervise and wait on games of poker played there, furnish the players with cards, chips, etc., and see that they paid for the use of the conveniences so furnished, and that he was to get one-half the net profits in lieu of salary; that his employment was by the year, but that he was discharged without cause at the end of 10 weeks, and is entitled to recover $5,216.40 as the amount that he would have made during the remainder of the year. The suit was dismissed upon an exception of "no cause of action," and, we think, properly dismissed. The object of the contract was the maintenance of an establishment for the indulgence of a vice, denounced as such by the Constitution of the state. The contract was, therefore, morally impossible, and void, and no damages can be recovered for its nonfulfillment. Civ. Code, arts. 1891, 1892, 1893, 1895. The fact that plaintiff was not obliged by his agreement to participate in the games may have been to his advantage in some respects, but it does not improve his standing in court. Cummings v. Saux, 30 La. Ann. 207; Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 258, 6 L. Ed. 468.
Judgment affirmed.