The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1867-07-30
OPINION BY JUDGE READE.

founded on Confederate currency. 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 Us. 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 consideration.
For very clearly, if the consideration was illegal,
the contract will not be enforced in this Court.
shall treat it as a dry legal question.
A contract is not void merely because it tends
to promote illegal or immoral purposes-HH-
lard on Safes, 376; armstrong Us. Toler, IL
Wheat 25S; Story's Conflict of La~s, 25S.
A contract for the sale of house and lot is
not vitiated by the fact that the vendor knows,
at the time of making it, that the veadee IN.
tends it for an immoral or illegal purpose
Armyfeld VS. Tate, Ired 259.
| A sale of goods is not void although the seller
knows that they are wanted for an illegal pur-
pose, unless he has part in the illegal purpose
| l-Hodgeon VS.. Temple, 5 Tarent 181. 10 which
case Mansfield, G. j., says: "The merely selling
goods, knowing that the buyer will make an
illegal use of them, is not sufficient to deprive
the vendor of his just right of payment" In
Dater VS.. Earl, Gray Massachusetts, Reports
1872, the Court says: "If the illegal use to be
made of the goods enters into the contract and
forms the motive or inducement in the mind of
the vendor or lender to the sale or loan, then he
cannot recover, provided the goods or money are
actually used to carry out the contemplated de-
sign; 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 reme-
dy for the purchase money"
hf
in his own territory, by citizen of the United
States, the sa le is valid, and the price may be
recovered, although the act might be misde-
meanor and the property liable as prize
Goodbye VS.. Lnglee, l3 Massachusetts, Reports,
26. Authorities are abundant to the same effect
1t will be seen, therefore, that contract is
not void because there is something immoral or
illegal in its surroundings connections. And
yet it is equally certain that contract is void
when the consideration is Illegal or immoral.
What, then, is the criterion Probably the
following cases will show the dividing line
Goods were sold to a man who intended to SNUG
gle them and defraud the Revenue, and the
vendor knew of the design; it was held that the
contract valid, and that the vendor could
recover the price; Holnaon VS.. Johnson, Cowper,
34l. But goods were sold to man who in
tended to smuggle them and defraud the Reve-
pose, but put them up in particular manner
so as to enable it to be done it was held that
the contract was void and that the price could
not be recovered; Briggs VS.. Laurence, 3 Term
Reports, 454. Now what is the difference be-
tween the two cases? None !-except that in
the latter case 1t 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 parties to accomplish
the illegal thing is necessary to vtiate the con-
tract and, therefore, in the case before us, un-
less the intent of the parties in their contract
was to aid the Rebellion, the fact that it did it,
Gf it did,) by giving currency to the notes, does
not vitiate it.
1t is not pretended that the Confederate
Treasury notes were Of no value. 1t is con-
ceded that they were of value, aud 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 contendcd that although of value they were
illegal. In what sense were they so? In no
the thing used a consideration, of
itself and Independent of the intention of the
parties. invalidate the contract if the thing be
of value; unless, perhaps, by express Statute.
There is nothing which may not be turned to
mischief in its use, as poisons, deadly weapons
and the like; but still they are sufficient con-
siderations to support contracts unless it be the
intent Of the sale to do mischief The case of
Random VS. Toby, IL Howard u. s. Reports
493, is very strong in point. In that case Afri-
cans had been imported and sold as slaves,
which is forbidden by law. The vendor brought
suit for the price of one which he had sold aud
the defense was that the consideration was
illegal. The court says: "The plea that the
notes were given for African negroes imported
into Texas after 1888 is unavailable On the
argument here il was endeavored In he sun.
ported on the ground that the notes were void,
because the introduction of African negroes into
Texas was contrary to law.
1t these notes had been given on contract
to do thing forbidden by law, undoubtedly
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 committed by those who introduced the
negroes into the country, does not attach to
those who may afterwards purchase them. AS
respects the defendant, therefore, be has re-
ceived the full consideration of bis notes" And
then follows this strong language by the court
"lf 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 be was not
bound to pay for them because the importer had
smuegled the cloth, he would present case of
equal merits and parallel with the present; but
be would not be likely to have the verdict of
the jury or the jud gment of the Court"
SO, In the case before US, it is conceded that
it was illegal to issue the Treasury notes. Just as
1t was illegal to import the negroes but the
ilegality is in the issuing in the one case, and
The importing in the other, and does not attach
to those who afterwards use the thing Issued or
imported It was insisted, in the argument be-
fore US, that the value Of the Treasury notes