The Yazoo Whig and political register. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1840-1842, 1842-03-25


article is void ), and that no action can be
founded on it, yet the rule will not apply to
a sale or conveyance made by the purchaser
from the supporter, ito athird person; not
though the second sale or conveyance, should
requires such third person to pay the price
agreed to be. given by the first purchaser 10
the illegal importer. When prohibited arti-
cles become mixed up with the property of
the country, 8 although the introduction and
first contract of sale may be illegal, this ille-
gality does not extend to subsequent sales of
the same article. Bells Com. 3O6-11 Wheat
258. Forinstancs, it will not be- pretended
that citizen of this State who had purcha-
sed slaves imported here for sale, might not
lawfully sell themagain to third persRn.-n
Here there was ar absoluteconveyance upon
a declared trust b. John B Pease the putcha-
Sefi4rom the importer, to the Trustee named
in the Deed; contract totally separate and
distinct from the original contract. think
1t clear that John B Pease himself couldnot
set aside this conveyance upon the gTotnd
taken in the complainantss bill. In the case
of Denn VS. Dodds, John Co 158, the Su-
preme Court of New York held that Deed
conveying property upon trust for the pay
ment of an usarlous debt, could not be set
aside on the ground of usury; and yet we
tracts affected with usury absolutely void
In that case the Court say of the Deed ''It
was an absolute conveyance upon trusts, and
operated as payment or satisfaction Of the
debts mentioned in it, which debe upon the
performance of the trusts would be dischar-
ged and exIinguished. 1t was an act done
In execution Of the previous contracts, by
which the usurious debts were created, and
nothing but the trusts remained for the BEN
eft of the grantor." The Court say, an act
of this nature cannot be rescinded on the
ground Of usury. lift were permitted in case
of an absolute conveyance or q conveyance
upon trust, the consequences would be ex-
tensively injurious. No man would be safe
in his title to real property, &c. The case of
Jackson ex. dem. Bartlett, ct. al. vs. Henry
10 John 1875, is in support of the same prin-
ciples. s . -.
contracts for usury, and are not applicable.
| am not aware Of any distinction between
contracts which are absolutely void, although
they may be void on different grounds.
cannot perceive any difference in principle
between a contract for uSury made void by
statute, and a contract TO- slaves made void
by the constitution. 1t seems to me that
precisely the same consequences and effects,
that attend theone, shout follow the other.
have not been able to conceive the idea Of
two contracts, both absolutely void, upon
. different grounds, but onole void than the
other. The case mainly selied upon by the
compliments counsel is tAat of MCGUIRE We
Ashby, / Rand. I01. In Tat case NJ, being
| indebted to an unchaItered bank for the loan
| Of it's notes, executed Died of Trust con-
veying land to secure the payment thereof
| He afterwards executed another deed of trust
upon the same land to secure A e. S in adebt
which he owed them. Tie Trustee in the
first Deed Of Trust being about to sell the
land to satisfy the debt due the banking COM
pany, A. & S claiming the land under 9heil
| Deed, obtained an Injunction against the
J sale under the first Deed upon the ground
that it was void, being made to private bank
and private banking being prohibited by the
laws of Virginia. This ctse stands opposed
to the cases to which have referred from
| New York and Massachusetts,. But suppose
the decision to be sound .hw in the case in
which it was made, il isfar from being al
authority in the present case. Suppose A
! & S had taken their Deed with a full know
ledge of the pre-existing Deed to the bank
and that they had promised as the consider
alton for their Deed, to pay the debt due un
| der the bank Deed, and that MCCLURE thel
grantor had afterwards, confessed ajudgmen
in favor of the bank, the case would the
have been analogous to the one before me
and would it is believed have received q On
ierent decision. In this case il appears tina
John B Pease had confessed q judgment uF
on the aIledged illegal contract before tn
complainant had filed his bill, and thus pre-
cluded himself 81 least, from questioning "a
validityofthatc0nt In the case Of Gree
VS.. Robinson, the High Court Of Errors hel
iethat d party who had suffered judgment
pass against him upon such q contract, W.
Concluded by il and could not Be relieve
against it BY q Courtof Equity. Itstrikes n
that II would involve strangs cohtFadictio
Of principle to hold thai party % an iIleg
cohtractis concluded BY d iudgment on it,
and that vet third person, who had acqu
red an INTEREST," in the subject matter Of Gu
contract knowing Of It's illegality and prom
sing TO pay II, might 1t the same time aVoI
it. III third person may object % 9 vo
contract Il must be upon the ground that
/ ID sill iS3oi1 az hetWean the parties there