West v. Loe Pipe Yard
125 So.2d 469, 1960 La. App. LEXIS 1295 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who lends money to another for the purpose of gambling cannot recover the funds if the lender is not 'wholly unconnected' with the illegal gambling activity. A lender who facilitates the game or is in charge of the premises where it occurs is considered connected to the activity and is therefore barred from recovery.
Facts:
- W. T. West was the assistant manager of a gambling establishment and had connections to the Plaza Club in Louisiana.
- On September 4, 1954, West invited Bert Loe to the Plaza Club.
- At the club, a poker game commenced, and Loe decided to participate despite having little or no money.
- West loaned Loe $2,000 in cash to participate in the poker game, for which Loe issued drafts from his company, Loe Pipe Yard.
- West also endorsed and guaranteed payment for an additional $3,000 that Loe borrowed from other participants in the same poker game.
- During the all-night poker game, the owner of the Plaza Club turned over complete management and control of the establishment to West, who tended the bar and remained in charge until the game concluded.
Procedural Posture:
- W. T. West sued Loe Pipe Yard and its partners in a Louisiana trial court to recover a $5,000 debt evidenced by several drafts.
- The trial court initially rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, West.
- The defendants filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court granted.
- Following a second hearing, the trial court reversed its initial decision and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing West's suit.
- The plaintiff, W. T. West, appealed the final judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who lends money to another with the knowledge that it will be used for gambling, and who actively facilitates the gambling activity by managing the premises, have a legally enforceable claim to recover the funds?
Opinions:
Majority - Hood, Judge
No. A person who is not wholly unconnected with an illegal gambling transaction cannot maintain a legal action to recover money loaned for that purpose. While Louisiana law permits an innocent bystander to recover money loaned to pay a gambling debt, West's actions place him far outside this exception. West was not an innocent bystander because he invited Loe to the club, knew the money was for gambling, guaranteed additional loans from others, and took complete managerial control of the premises while the illegal game was being conducted. Because West's conduct demonstrates he was not 'wholly unconnected' with the illegal activity, the cause of the obligation is unlawful and contra bonos mores, rendering the debt unenforceable.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'innocent bystander' exception for recovering loans related to gambling debts, establishing that being 'wholly unconnected' is a strict standard. The court's decision demonstrates that one does not need to own the gambling establishment or be a player in the game to be considered legally 'connected' to the illegal activity. Actively facilitating the gambling environment, such as managing the premises or arranging funds, is sufficient to bar recovery, reinforcing Louisiana's strong public policy against gambling and preventing even peripheral facilitators from using the courts to enforce related debts.
