In Gipson v. Knard, 96 Ala. 419, 11 So. 482 (1892) the parties were joint owners of out-of-state lottery tickets. In Talley v. Mathis, 265 Ga. 179, 453 S.E.2d 704 (1995), the complaint alleged that two friends, both residents of Georgia, had agreed to jointly purchase tickets from the State of Kentucky lottery and to share the proceeds if they won. Mathis made the argument that the alleged agreement was against the public policy of the State where it was made and therefore was unenforceable. The Georgia Supreme Court, as the plaintiffs correctly argue, not only held that the alleged agreement would not violate Georgia public policy but stated that "the public policy of this state would be violated if appellant were denied the opportunity to seek to enforce the alleged agreement against appellees." 265 Ga. at 181, 453 S.E.2d at 706. The plaintiffs also argue that the facts of Talley are similar to the facts in Gipson v. Knard, 96 Ala. 419, 11 So. 482 (1892), because in both cases the parties were joint owners of out-of-state lottery tickets. In Pearsall v. Alexander, 572 A.2d 113 (D.C. 1990), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals described as "the story of two friends who split the price of a lottery ticket only to have the ticket win and split their friendship." 572 A.2d at 114. In Pearsall, the court held that the agreement did not constitute a gambling contract.