G.R. No. 893 : March 18, 1903
I. O. CONCHEGULL, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSEPH B. HYAMS, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
The plaintiff, I. O. Conchegull, owned a horse, harness, and calesa, which he sought to dispose of through a raffle. He sold tickets and collected $210. On January 3, 1902, he brought the property to the location of the drawing. The tickets were placed in a box, and the defendant, Joseph B. Hyams, held the winning ticket. After the drawing, it was discovered that a ticket owned by another person (Irwin) had not been included in the box. A discussion ensued among the ticket holders present. During this time, the defendant settled with Irwin by giving him a half-interest in the property, then entered the calesa and drove away with it. The plaintiff was present but did not object to the defendant’s taking of the property. The plaintiff subsequently filed an action to recover the property, alleging the defendant took it against his will.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiff voluntarily delivered the property to the defendant, thereby barring recovery.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendant. The Court held that the plaintiff voluntarily delivered the property. By organizing the raffle, receiving the money for the tickets, and bringing the property to the drawing for the express purpose of having the winner take possession, the plaintiff impliedly consented to the transfer of ownership to the winning ticket holder. His presence and failure to object when the defendant took the property confirmed this voluntary delivery. The transaction constituted either a sale (where the price was the ticket proceeds) or a loss in a prohibited game of chance. Under either view, the plaintiff could not recover: if it was a sale, delivery was complete; if it was an illegal raffle prohibited by ordinance, Article 1798 of the Civil Code bars recovery of what was voluntarily lost in gambling. The trial court correctly admitted evidence concerning the raffle to establish these defenses.