Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1866-05-30
Decision of the Supreme Court.

JUDGEs-SAM MILLIGAN, JAMES c. SHACKELFoRp,
AND ALVIN HAWKINS.
THOMAS d. Caldwell, Attorney General and Re-
porter.
GEO. KELTON, admir-, zee Of SARAH BOWER
NAN, ct. oi rs JESSE IHLLLKEN, Ct al.
This bill was filed by the heirs of Michael Bowcrman
enforce the collection of two notes for about $l750,
which the cOmpainants alleged given for the pur-
chase money Of tract Of land bought by the defendant
Jesse Millikin.
The facts presented by the record In 1853 Samuel
Bowerman, the son of Michael Bowerman, arrested
for horse stealing in the county of Williamson and placed
in jail by the authorities Michael Bowerman became
bail for his the Of 900 for his appearance
the charge Within few days after his
Cannon county, where he resided he sold the tract of
land which he lived Gas acres to the defendant, Jes
Miken, for 81 $780, and gave him deed for the land
in which the receipt of the purchase money is acknow
lodged the deed duly registered He removed in a
few days the State of Kentucky with his family The
recoGnizance forfeited.
1t appears from the record at the time the sale
made the notes transferred tie Milton Bowerman,
Michael remarkng that the State could garnishee him.
bill filed in the Chancery Court at Woodbury. to
subject the land 10 the payment of the recognZance-
About this time Albert C. Mikn went to Kentucky for
the and received them The suit the part of the
State compromised and dismissed. The proof of the
compliments consists principally Of the acknowledgment
Of Jesse Mkiu and A. G. Millkin in which it clearly
appears the returned to Mikin to enable him
defeat the suit Of the State Bowerman in the Chan
Gerry Court In the record there proof of the pay
ment of the money the notes. Michael BoWerman is
dead and the suit prosecuted in the of his widow
administrator and heirs There decree for the sale of
the lands for the payment of the notes. rem which the
defendants have appealed TO this court.
We satisfied from the proof the sale of Michael
Bowerman to defendant Jesse Milikin, made for the
purpose Of defeating the recognzance he under for
his Men act without motive, and to arrive
at correct conclusions must look to their acts Bow
erman's is in prison for high crime; he becomes
his bail for 81 600 for his appearance at court takes his
son home with him; few days thereafter he sells his
tOf dofn tn
absolute deed for the to defendant
knowledges tie payment Of the purchase money and
with his family from the State The recognzance
is forfeited suit is commenced on his bond the notes
sent defendant to defeat the suit This is part
evidently of the original agreement The State is defeat
ed the object accomplished. Can there be any doubt
the object and purpose Of the sale TO defeat the col
lection of the bond be had gwen the security for his
sons appearance His heirs and administrator in
woke the aid Of court TO collect debt growing out OF
this transaction and enforce specific execution of con-
tract thus made. The law is well settled suit will not
lie to enforce contract that is made in violation of
statute or of the common law against public pocy-3
Head, 29s. 1t is well settled principle of legal rule,
where the parties have been guilty OF or contemplated IN
the particular matter fraudulent, criminal immOr
al act, where it is against public policy the courts
will not interfere, but leave the parties without redress,
whatever claim they may have each Other-3 Head,
95and the party has beer guilty of such conduct
would rope him. his heirs widow and administrator will
also be repealed.
It is insisted for the plaintiffs Though should appear
the transaction against public policy, yet if the fact
existed Court of Chancery would entertain the
for the sake of the public and place the parties where
they The in Head, 6lS is relied to
tain the position. We recognize the principle of that
correct Courts of equity will grant relief in par
tcUar transactions. Whenever by public policy relief
may be given in equity parti cops crimnis, but the
relief always given aid of suhyersive of public
policy, that Of gaming. bill was fled to
have securities delivered up. The court held in view of
public policy to suppress gaming, the complainant
would be refuted merely the ground that he was
part ceps criminis The said in of violation
of public policy ii is Indifferent who stands before the
court because the does regard the state and
ditiUn of the parties much the nature of the
tract and the public good This principle settled in
Years, 49, in the elaborate opinion of Judge White
The authorities several and the principle Is where
Court of Chancery gives relief IN such cases II always
in aid of public policy In the of Akin vs. Dodd
Hump. 1885, the distinction is drawn between cases IN
which courts will grant relief. The court says: That
although both fault they stand in different rel
ton to the transaction and the policy and interest OF the
community in favor of permitting the party to set
aside the transaction without which it would have been
10 vain TO have declared Illegal contracts OF an usu
rious character and distinction in many has been
recognized between cases the hand affected by il
legality merely, and the other hand where the
contract nahum in Se-immoral or contrary to pub
lie policy, party in the former being permitted a
ter contract executed committed to invoke the aid
of court set it aside redress himself and in the lat
ter being repealed fro Court Of Justice the
ground that being equally dereic in the transaction
wards society with the party complained Of the Court will
not hear his cause and grant relief not because his ad
versary not to blame, equally blame, but because
he having violated good morals and law shall not be
heard to aege that his very of action and claim to
relief barred upon the fact of such violation of law
and morals From the facts of this record the ancestor
of the complainant in conveying his property to defeat
the recognizancc guilty Of such violation of public
morals as repels him from Court if he suing, and
his widow and heirs representing and claiming through
him, repealed by OF his fraudulent acts. 1t is
tnssted by the counsel of the compliments the facts show
the illegal transactions are developed by the defendant
and he should be heard declare his own erptude
he being part cep criais. The defendentnot because
of any favor to him. but because he is SUCH can upon
well settled principles dege and show the fraudulent char
acter Of the contract and the plaintiff in the proof taken
introduced the admissions of defendants which fully e
tabsh the character and of the contract In the
view have of the law controlling this case il is unnee
essry to decide the other question raised The decree Of
the Chancellor is reversed, and the bill dismissed.
SHACKLEFoRD, Judge.
Attest: J. 6. FRAZER, Clerk.
II, Al.