Case ID: nc_165/html/0372-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      BRowsr, J\\", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BLUTHENTHAL & BECKART, Inc., v. RALPH KENNEDY.
    (Filed 8 April, 1914.)
    Intoxicating Liquors — Actions to Recover — Public Policy — Courts.
    An action to recover upon an account for spirituous liquors sold and delivered bere for tbe purposes of salé cannot be maintained in tbe courts of tbis State, for sucb transactions are against our public policy; and tbe fact that the contract was made in a State recognizing its validity does not alter tbe matter.
    Appeal by plaintiff from Rountree, J., at December Term, 1913, of New HaNover.
    Civil, action tried upon these issues:
    1. Did the plaintiff sell and deliver to the defendant the goods, specified in the complaint? A. Yes.
    2. What was the value of those goods'? A. $433.
    3. Where was the contract of-sale made? • A. Baltimore.
    4. Is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff ? If so, in what amount? Answered by the court, “No.”
    5. Was the whiskey sold and delivered by. the plaintiff to the defendant for the purpose of being resold in North Carolina, and contrary to the law of that State? A. Yes.
    Both'plaintiff and defendant moved for judgment upon the verdict, which motions were continued to the December term of the court.
    At December term the court rendered judgment as follows:
    Upon the hearing of these motions at this term, it is ordered and adjudged that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was made in the city of Baltimore, State of Maryland, and that, upon the verdict on the fifth issue, the plaintiff recover nothing of the' defendant, and that the defendant recover his COStS. GrEORGE RouNtree,
    
      Judge Presiding.
    
    Plaintiff excepts and appeals to the Supreme Court.
    
      Iredell Meares and G. F. Meares for plaintiff.
    
    
      Eellum & Loughlin for defendant.
    
   BRowsr, J\

We. agree witb tbe learned judge of tbe Superior Court, tbat upon tbe entire evidence and upon tbe finding of tbe jury upon tbe fifth issue tbe plaintiff is not entitled to recover.

There are some conflicting decisions upon the question ijre-sented .on this appeal, but we think the best considered cases bold tbat a note or contract valid in tbe State where it is made cannot be enforced in another State to whose public policy tbe transactions which form its consideration are contrary. Windward v. Lincoln, 64 L. R. A., 160, and notes; Bank v. Earle, U. S. Supreme Court (10 L. Ed.), 308; Levison v. Boas, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.), 576, and notes; Brewing Co. v. Harriman, 47 N. E., 864; Woodford v. Hamilton, 39 N. E., 47; Furniture Co. v. Allsteine, 51 L. R. A., 890.

Tbat tbe sale of spirituous liquors within tbe State of North Carolina is against-its declared policy is manifested by tbe legislation enacted on tbe subject.

Upon this principle cases are to be found in tbe decisions of this Court which bold tbat no contract, wherever made, in aid of tbe so-called, but erroneously termed, rebellion of tbe Southern States will be enforced by tbe courts of this State. Leak v. Commissioners, 64 N. C., 134; Brickell v. Commissioners, 81 N. C., 241.

Also, tbat tbe contract of a married woman, a citizen and resident of North Carolina, not a free trader, made in Maryland, and valid under tbe laws of tbat State, will not be enforced by the- courts of North Carolina, because such contracts are not permitted here, or were not when tbat decision was made. Armstrong v. Best, 112 N. C., 59.

Tbe reasoning óf tbe opinion of Chief Justice Shepherd in tbat case covers tbe one under consideration. In it be says: “A very important qualification of private international law is to be considered, and this is tbat no State or Nation will enforce a foreign law which.is contrary to its fixed and settled public policy.” See, also, Bank v. Earle, 13 Peters U. S., 519; Story Conflict of Laws, 37; Bank v. Granite Co., 155 N. C., 45, in which tbe decision in Armstrong v. Best is commented upon and approved.

Tbe exact point is decided in Gooch v. Faucett, 122 N. C., 271, where it is held that a note given in consideration of a bet won on a horse race cannot be enforced in this State, although given in a State where wagering contracts are not invalid.

It is useless to multiply authorities. It is well settled that the courts of this State will not lend their aid to the enforcement of any contract made and entered into by both parties to violate the public laws of the State, and it matters not where the contract is made.

No error.