Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1866-06-06
GEO KELTON, ai,u'r, uSc Of SARtH 30 WEI
WV z. IL. rs JESSE NLLLLKEN. ct a.

GEO. EELTON, alotr, use Of HAR-tH BOWER
-VAN, e. a., rs JESSE WLLLIKEN, ct a.
This bill was filed by the heirs of Michael Bowerman
enforce the collection of two notes for about 49,
which the compliments alleged given for the pur
chase money of tract of land bought by the defendant
Jesse Millikin
The facts presented by the record are In 1885 Samuel
Bowerman, the of Michael Bowerman, arrested
for horse stealing the county of williamson and placed
in Jail by the authorities Michael Bowerman became
bail for his son il the of 81 GOO for his appearance
to answer 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 Sl,75O, 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
few days to the State of Kentucky with his family The
recOgnzance was forfeited
1t appears from the record at the time the sale was
made the notes transferred te Milton Bowerman
Michael remarking that the State could garnshee him.
bill filed in the Chancery Court at Woodbury. to
subject the land TO the payment of the recOgnizance
About this lime Albert G Nkin went to Kentucky for
the notes and received them The suit the part of the
State compromised and dismissed The proof Of the
companants consists principally Of the acknowledgment
of Jesse Mkin and A. g. Nlllikn, in which it clearly
appears the notes returned to Mkn to enable him
to defeat the suit of the State w. Bowerman in the Chan
Gerry Court In the record there proof of the pay
ment of the money the notes. Michael Bowcrman 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 are satisfied, from the proof the sale Of Michael
Bowerman to defendant Jesse Mikin, made for the
purpose Of defeating the recOgnlZanCe under tor
his Men never act without motive and TO arrive
at correct conclusions must look to their acts. Bow
erman's is il prison for high crime he becomes
his bail for 900 for his appearance at court takes his
son home with him: few days thereafter he sells his
home tract of land of G4j acres defendant for 81 $50
absolute deed for the to defendant
knOwedges the payment of the purchase money and
with his family from the State The recOgnzauce
is forfeited suit is commenced his bond the notes
sent TO defendant to defeat the suit This is part
evidently of the original agreement The State is defeat
ed the object is accomplished Can there be any doubt
the object and purpose of the sale defeat the col
lection of the bond he had given the security for his
sons appearance His heirs and administrator now 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 of the law against public policy
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 or immOr
al act where it against public policy the courts
will interfere but leave the parties without redress
whatever claim they may have on each other Head
95and if the party has beer guilty Of such conduct as
would repe him. his heirs. widow and administrator will
also be repealed.
1t is insisted for the plaintiffs, though it should appear
the transaction against public policy, yet the fact
existed Court of Chancery would entertain the case
they were The case in Head 61S, is relied to sus
tain the position. We recognize the principle OF that
case as correct Courts of equity will grant relief IN par
ticular transactions. Whenever by public policy relief
NAV be given in equity parti ceps crminis, but the
relief is always given in aid Of not suhversVe Of public
policy, that of gaming bill was filed, to
have securities delivered up The court held in view OF
public policy suppress gaming, the COMPLAINANT
would not be efuted merely the ground that he
par ceps criminS The court said in cases Of violation
Of public policy it is Indifferent who stands before the
court because the court does not regard the state anu con-
don of the parties much as the nature OF the con-
tract and the public good This principle settled in
Years 525 in the elaborate opinion Of Judge White
The authorities are several and the principle is where
Court Of Chancery gives relief IN such cases 1t always
in aid of public policy In the of Akin VS.. Dodd
HUMP ISIS the distinction Is drawn between cases in
which courts will grant relief The court says; 1nat
although both are fault they stand IN different rela
ton TO the Transaction and the policy and interest OF the
community are in favor of permitting the party 10 set
m lie the transaction without which 1t would have been
in vain to have declared Illegal as contracts OF an us
rious character and distinction II many cases Las oegn
recognized between cases the one hand affected by Il
LEGALITY merely and eases the other hand where inc
contract was nahum in se-immoral OF contrary - pun
lie policy party in the former case being PeTnteu a.
ter contract is executed or commuted 70 NV GA ~ u
of court to set aside redress himself anu IN the lt-
fer case beino repeed from Court OF justice on the
ground that being equally dereliet IN the transaction 10
wards societv with the party complained OIL the Cour VIII
not hear his cause and grant relief not because MS ad-
ersarv * NOT TO blame or equally TO blame, but because
he having violated good morals and law sha not be
heard TO alege that his very cause Of aeon anu ga IN 70
raf are 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 recognizance guilty of such violation Of puoc
morals as repes him from Court II ne were SUING anu
his id and heirs representing and claiming through
him, are repeed by of his fraudulent acts It is
insisted by the counsel the eompanants the facts show
the illegal transactions developed by the defendant
and he Should be heard to declare ms own lepuae
he heinz mart, Gems erinais. The defendent not because
of any favor to him but because he is SUCH can upon
well settled principles Aege and show the fraudulent char
acter of the contract and the painh IN the PROOF taSen'
tabsb the character and nature of the contract In the
view we have of the law controlling this it unnee
essay to decide the other question raised The decree OF
the fhancellor is reversed and the bill dismissed.