190 A.2d 904 | D.C. | 1963
Appellant brought this action to recover $1,606, the total of various loans he had made to appellee.
Ordinarily a contract valid where made will be enforced in the courts of another jurisdiction without regard to whether it would have been valid under the law of the forum. Exception is made to the general rule when enforcement of the contract would contravene the public policy of the
At the time the loans were made the operation of slot machines was legal in Charles County, Maryland, where appellant’s restaurant was located; but it does not necessarily follow that Maryland courts will entertain an action to recover money advanced for the purpose of playing such machines. For example, licensed gambling establishments operate legally in the State of Nevada, but because parts of the Statute of Ann are still in effect in that State, a gambling house may not maintain an action for the collection of money won from a customer;
The Statute of Ann, ch. 14, sections of which are incorporated in our Code,
Affirmed.
. On a previous appeal we reversed and ordered a new trial. D.C.Mun.App., 173 A.2d 737.
. This section continues in force Section 1 of the Statute of 9 Ann, ch. 14. The verbiage pertinent to this case provides:
“All notes * * * given * * * for the reimbursing or repaying any money knowingly lent, or advanced for such gaming' or betting * * * shall be utterly void, frustrate, and of none effect * *
. See Annotation, 173 A.L.R. 695. See also, Intercontinental Hotels Corp. v. Golden, 18 A.D.2d 45, 238 N.Y.S.2d 33.
. West Indies, Inc. v. First National Bank of Nevada, 67 Nev. 13, 214 P.2d 144.
. Weisbrod v. Fremont Hotel, Inc., 74 Nev. 227, 326 P.2d 1104.
. Wolpert v. Knight, 74 Nev. 322, 330 P.2d 1023.
. D.C.Code 1961, §§ 16-701 thru 16-706.
. Emerson v. Townsend, 73 Md. 224, 20 A. 984.
. Now Art. 27, § 243, of the 1957 Annotated Code of Maryland.
. See Farmers’ Milling & Grain Co. v. Urner, 151 Md. 43, 134 A. 29.