delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff in error Helen Slagle, plaintiff below, sued to replevy an automobile from a corporation called the Construction Progress Exposition. On motion a verdict was directed in favor of the defendant. Judgment was accordingly entered. Plaintiff now seeks a reversal.
The defendant corporation pleaded its ownership of the automobile in question. The plaintiff’s replication did not plead the method by which she claims to have *293 obtained tbe title of tbe car. Neither do tbe assignments of error reveal the basis of ber claim. It appears from tbe record, however, that she relies upon tbe contention that tbe defendant made a gift to ber of tbe automobile. It is immaterial that tbe gift is asserted to have been effected through tbe drawing of a “lucky number” from among all tbe numbers received in connection with admission tickets by tbe persons visiting tbe defendant’s “fair, ’ ’ where numerous merchants exhibited their wares.
No contract right could arise out of tbe situation thus presented, lacking as it does all tbe essential elements of a legal contract. The only question therefore is whether there was a complete gift. According to tbe uncontradicted evidence, tbe automobile was not to be delivered until tbe close of tbe fair. It is admitted that tbe fair closed without any delivery being made to Mrs. Slagle. There was no gift, for a gift presupposes an effectual delivery.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Chiee Justice Burke and Mr. Justice Young concur.