Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-07-26
From the Raleigh Sentinel.
- hS, .Infage ReRde.

L
We published, few days since, the opin-
| ion of Chief Justice Pearson in the case OF
Phillips as. Hooker, involving the validity
of contracts founded on Confederate cur
rency. We give to-day the opinion OF his
Honor, Judge Reade, in the same case,
which, it will be perceived, IS devoted to
the learning in the premises
PHILLIPS IS HOOKER.
| READE il propose to consider only SO
much of the case as involves the question
whether Confederate Treasury notes, which
were paid for the land, were an illegal con-
sideration. For, very clearly, if the con
sideration was illegal the contract will not
be enforced in this Court. I shall treat 1t
as a dry legal question.
A contract is not void merely because it
tends to promote illegal or immoral pur-
poses-HiNiard un Sales, 376; Armstrong
cs. 7oler, II Wheat 25S; St0ry's Conflict Of
Laps, 259.
A contract for the sale of house and lot
is not vitiated by the fact that the vendor
knows, ct the time of making it, that the
vendee intends it for all immoral or illegal
purpose.-Armfeld us. Tate, Ired. 259.
A sale of goods is not void although the
seller knows that they are wanted for an
illegal purpose, unless lie has q part in the
illegal se-Rodgeon vs. Temple, Ia
rent 1871. In which case Mansfield, G. j.
says: THE merely selling goods know
ing the buyer will make an illegal use OF
them, is not sufficient to deprive the ven
dor of his just right Of payment" In
Doter VS. Earl 3 Gray Massachusetts, Re
ports 1872, the Coart says: IF the illegal
use to be made OF the goods enters into
the contract and forms the motive OF in
ducement in the mind of the vendor OF
70 &l>o, 10 I,o a
recover, provided tho goods or money are
actually used to carry out the contemplated
design but bare knowledge on the part OF
the vendor that the vendee Intends to put
the goods or money TO an illegal use, will
not vitiate the sale or loan, and deprive
the vendor of all remedy for the purchase
money"
Where goods are bought from an enemy,
even in his own territory, by a citizen of
the United States, the sale is valid, and the
price may be recovered, although the act
might be misdemeanor and the property
liable as prize Coolidge rs Lglee, Is Mas
sachu5etts Reports, %. Authorities are
abundant to the same effect.
It will be seen, therefore, that contract
is not void because there is something i'm
moral or illegal in its surroundings or con-
nections. And yet it is equally certain that
is illegal or immoral What, then, is the
criterion I? Probably the following cases
will show the dividing line Goods were
sold to man who intended to smuggle
them and defraud the Revenue, and the
vender knew of the design it was held
that the contract was valid, and the vender
could recover the price; H0Lmon rs. John
son, Cowper, 231. But goods were sold to
a man who intended to smuggle them and
defraud the Revenue, and the vender not
only knew OF the purpose but put them up
in particular manner so as to enable it to
be done it was held that the contract was
void, and the price could not be recovered
Briggs Is. Laurence, 8 Term Reports 454
Now what is the difference between the
two cases None Except that in the
latter case it was part of the arrangement
and entered into the intent of the parties
that the thing should be done All these
authorities show that the intent of the par
ties to accomplish the illegal thing is ne
, cessary to vitiate the contract and, there
fore, in the case before us, unless the in
tent Of the parties in their contract was to
aid the Rebellion, the fact that it did it,
(if it did, by giving currency to the notes,
does not vitiate it.
It is not pretended that the Confederate
Treasury notes were Of no UaLUe. 1t Is con-
ceded that they were of value, and that, at
the time of the sale in 1862, less than Two
dollars of the notes would buy one dollar
of gold But it is contended that although
Of value they were illegal! In what sense
were they so ? In no case can the thing
used rs consideration, Of itself and indie
pendent OF tho intention OF the parties, in
validate the contract ii the thing be of val
ue; unless, perhaps, by express Statute
There is nothing which may not be turned
to mischief i'll its use, as poisons, deadly
weapons and the like; but still they are suf-
ticient considerations to support contracts,
unless it be the intent of the sale to do mis-
chief. The case of Rand0n rs. 76bu II
Howard U. S. Reports 493, is very strong
in point. In that case Africans had been
imported and sold as slaves, which is for
hidden by law. The vender brought suit
for the price of one which he had sold; and
the defense was that the consideration was
illegal. The court says: The plea that the
notes were given for African negroes i'm
ported into Texas after 1888 is unavailable.
On the argument here, it was endeavored
to be supported on the ground that the
notes were void, because the introduction
of African negroes into Texas was contrary
to law.
If these notes had been given on a con
tract to do thing forbidden by law, IN
dOubtedly they would be void. Neither Of
the parties had anything to do with the
original contract, nor was their contract
made in defiance of law. The crime com
mitted by those who introduced the negroes
into the country, does not attach to those
who may afterwards purchase them. As
respects the defendant, therefore, he has
received the full! consideration of his notes. >
And then follows this strong language by
the court eff the defendant should be
sued for his tailor's bill, and come into
court with the clothes made for him on his
back, and plead that he was not bound to
pay for them because the importer had
struggled the cloth, he would present a
case of equal merits and parallel with the
present but he would not be likely to have
the verdict of the jury or the Judgment Of
the Court"
So, in the case before us, it is conceded
shat it was illegal to issue the Treasury
notes, just as it was illegal to import the
negroes; but the illegality is in the issuing
In the one case, and in the importing in the
other, and does not attach to those who
afterwards use the thing issued or import
ed. It was insisted IN the argument he.