McGill v. Worland

YOUNG, J.

Lulu McGill brought an action against Thomas Worland and one Belpash in the Lucas Common Pleas on Aug. 26, 1925, to recover $4,682 and $500 exemplary damages by reason of money claimed to have been lost in gambling by her husband. It was alleged that Worland and Belpash operated a gambitos place from Aug. 1, 1924 to June 1, 1925, during which time her husband expended $4,-682 in gambling.

Demurrers were filed to McGill’s petition on the ground that it did not state a cause of action and that it was not filed within the time allowed by law. The demurrers were sustained and the petition was dismissed. Error was prosecuted to the Court of Appeals to reverse this judgment. The court held:

Attorneys — Fritsehe, Kruse & Winchester for McGill; Lawton & Saalfield and D. J. O’Rourke for Worland et; all of Toledo.

1. It is provided by 5967 GC. that a suit may be brought by a person for the amount of money lost by gambling, by a person depending upon such person for support or by a citizen for the person interested.

2. The suit, under 5966 GC. must be brought within 6 months after the loss; and by 5969 GC., if the loser does not sue within that time, any person may sue for and recover for the use of the such person prosecuting the suit.

3. No time within which action may be brought is mentioned in 5967 GC.

4. It is urged by Worland that it be construed to mean that even where the action is brought by a person other than the loser, it must be brought within the six months period.

5. By a liberal construction, necessitating the reading of the statutes together, no such limitation can be put on 5967 GC. which could bar a suit on part of plaintiff by reason of her failure to bring the suit within six months.

6. The petition is good as against demurrer and states a cause of action.

Judgment reversed.