
    David Homer, Administrator, &c., versus Kilborn Whitman and Others.
    
      Assumpsit lies for the holder of prize tickets against the managers of a lottery although they have given a bond, of which all persons aggrieved by their doings were, by law, to have the benefit
    Where two persons had purchased tickets in a lottery severally, and had mutually agreed to pay to each other a moiety of tire prizes drawn by each; it was holden, that the purchaser of each ticket could maintain a several action against the managers, for the prize drawn against such ticket
    This action was assumpsit, originally biought by James Brewer, the plaintiff’s intestate, against the defendants, as managers of the Plymouth Beach Lottery, so called, to recover the amount of a prize of 1000 dollars, drawn against a ticket sold by them.
    Two objections were made to the plaintiff’s right to recover. The first was, that his only remedy was upon the bond required, by the statute granting the lottery,  to be given by the managers to the treasurer of the town of Plymouth; it being proved, in the statute, that all persons aggrieved by the doings of the managers may have the benefit thereof.
    
      
      
        Stat. 1811, c. 148, § 2.
    
   Sed per Curiam.

This objection cannot prevail. The ticket is evidence of a promise by the managers to pay the prize which should be drawn against it. The bond is for the security of those for whose use the lottery was granted.

* The other objection was, that the action should have been brought by the intestate jointly with one Crombie ; it being in evidence that it had been agreed between them, that, if the ticket in question should draw a prize, the said Brewer should pay one moiety of such prize to Crombie; who was, also, to pay to Brewer the moiety of any prizes that should be drawn against two certain tickets which Crombie held in the same lottery. To this if was answered, and so agreed by the Court, that the plaintiff migfv maintain the action severally ; the evidence not proving a joint prop erty in the ticket, but only a contract, by each, to pay the other one half of the prize his ticket should draw. And if the property were joint, as the promise was to pay to the bearer of the ticket, the defendants could not object the joint interest.

Peabody for the plaintiff.

B. Whitman for the defendants.  