Where a prize is offered for competition, the acceptance of the offer by competitors does not constitute a wagering contract if the offeror of the prize does not take part in the competition.13 And the fact that an entrance fee is required of the contestants has been held not to invalidate the transaction.14 value of the land depended on the price of cotton, and therefore an agreement to pay a larger sum if cotton advanced than if it did not, was merely a method of adjusting the price to the value of the property. Decisions involving the same point are: Newell v. Smith, 53 Conn. 72, 3 Atl. 674; Plumb v. Campbell, 129 111. 101, 18 N. E. 790; Wolf v. National Bank, 178 111. 85, 52 N. E. 896; Phillips v. Gifford, 104 Iowa, 458, 73 N. W. 1033; Deyo v. Hammond, 102 Mich. 122, 60 N. W. 455, 25 L. R. A. 719; Treacy v. Chinn, 79 Mo. App. 648; Harper v. Crain, 36 Ohio St. 338, 38 Am. Rep. 589; Clyde v. Mohn, 4 Ohio C. C. 537, 2 Ohio Civ. Dec. 694; Kirkpatrick v. Bonsall, 72 Pa. St. 155. See also United States v. Olney, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 275; Lynch v. Rosenthal, 144 Ind. 86, 42 N. E. 1103, 31 L. R. A. 835, 55 Am. St. Rep. 168; Dion v. St. John Baptiste Soc., 82 Me. 319, 19 Atl. 825; Miller v. Eagle, etc., Ins. Co., 2 E. D. Smith, 268; Edson v. Pawlet, 22 Vt. 291; Stevens v. Freund, 169 Wis. 68,171 N. W. 300; Dunham v. St. Croix Mfg. Co., 34 N. Bruns. 243. But see contra, Burney v. Blanks (Tex. Civ. App.), 136 S. W. 806, and cf. Comer v. Powell (Tex. Civ. App.), 189 S. W. 88.

12 In the following cases promises to pay a price for property made wholly or partly contingent on the election of a certain official were held to- be wagers: Givens v. Rogers, 11 Ala. 543; Merchants' Sav., etc., Co. vt Goodrich, 75 111. 554; Hiser p. State, 12 Ind. 330; Davis v. Leonard, 69 Ind. 213; Craig v. Andrews, 7 Iowa, 17; Todd v. Coplinger, 4 Bush, 139; Commonwealth v. Shouse, 16 B. Mon. 325,63 Am. Dec. 551; Bates v. Clifford, 22 Minn. 52; Lucas v. Harper, 24 Ohio St. 328; Harper v. Crain, 36 Oh. St. 338, 38 Am. Rep. 589; Somen v. State, 5 Sneed, 438.

13 Applegarth v. Colley, 10 M. & W. 723; Alvord v. Smith, 63 Ind. 58; Wilkinson v. Stitt, 175 Mass. 581, 56 N. E. 830; Morrison v. Bennett, 20 Mont. 560, 568, 52 Pac. 553, 40 L. R. A. 158; People v. Fallon, 152 N. Y. 12, 46N.E.296, 37 L. R. A.227,57Am. St. Rep. 492; Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 532; State v. De Boy, 117 N. C. 702, 23 S. E. 167; Ballard v. Brown, 67 Vt. 586, 32 Atl. 485. See also Central Trust, etc., Co. v. RespasB, 112 Ky. 606, 66 S. W. 421, 56 L. R. A. 479; Moshier v. LaCrosse County Agricultural Soc., 90 Wis. 37, 62 N. W. 932. Similarly a contest where the person receiving most votes of third persons is awarded a prize, is unobjectionable though the voters pay for the privilege of voting. Dion v. St. John Baptiste Soc., 82 Me, 319, 19 Atl. 825.

14 Hankins v. Ottinger, 115 Cal. 454, 47 Pac. 254, 40 L. R. A. 76; Wilson v. Conlin, 3 111. App. 517; Molk

This result must be defended on the ground that the entrance fee is paid rather to cover the expenses of the contest than as purchasing the chance to secure a larger sum, as where a lottery ticket is purchased for a small fixed sum; but a sweepstakes where the winner receives the aggregate of the entrance fees of other contestants is wagering.15 The English statute, however, permits such transactions unless the game is unlawful.16