Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1884-01-31
THE NORTHWEST.
fori-inh
OPTION OONTRACTs-ARE THEY
LEGAL?
IOoninusd.l

and Petrie vs.. Hannay have been cited
and to some extent approved.
Armstrong Va. Toler, II Wheat. 25S,
was an action by Toler to recover mon;
sy paid out by him at the request OF
Armstrong, on account of goods import
ed by Armstrong in 1872, in violation of
iaw. The goods were consigned to
Toler, seized by the government, and
the duties, at the request of Armstrong,
paid by Toler. Armstrong resisted pay
ment on the ground of the illegal trans
action. 1t was tried before Judge
Washington In the Circuit rt,plaint-
lff recovered and the judgment was af-
firmed In the Supreme Court. In the
syllabus the court says: mo action
lies on any contract the consideration
of which Is either wicked in itself or
prohibited by law; but, if the illegal act
Is not the consideration of the contract,
and Is entirely disconnected from it, the
contract is valid, though the occasion
TOR making the contract arose out of TIE
existence of the illegal act 3 = =
If the importation is the result of
scheme between the plaintiff and Il o
defendant, or if the plaintiff has any in
terest In the goods, or if they are as
signed to him with his privity in order
that he may protect them, for the own
er, a promise to repay any advances
made under such understanding or
agreement, is utterly void" But, said
Chief Justice Marshall, "the contract to
ply the government was an independ-
ant contract, entirely distinct from the
unla wful importation"
Planters Bank vs. Union Bank, 16
How. 4s3, was an action by the plaint-
ih to recover the proceeds of Confeder-
ate bonds sold by the defendant for the
plaintiff. 1t was held that the plaintiff
could recover Notwithstanding the lille
gal character of the transaction out of
which the fund arose.
Brooks vs. Martin, Wall. II, was an
action by Brooks to recover from his
partner Martin, his share of partnership
profits arising out of the purchase of
soldiers claims in violation of the act
of Congress. 1t was held that while an
action could not be sustained between
the parties to enforce performance of
the illegal agreement, or to enforce pay
ment to carry it into effect; yet, when
the Illegal purpose or contract had been
fully accomplished, one arty.mieht
maintain an action against the other to
recover his share of the profits realized.
In Planters Bank vs. Union Bank, the
same principle was announced: That,
while the court will not enforce an ille-
gal contraot,yet "when the illegal trans
action has been consumated, when no
court has been called on to give aid, and
when the proceeds of the sale have been
actually received" in sustaining the
plaintiffs right to recover, the court is
not "enforcing an illegal contract"
These cases may be taken as settling
the law in the Federal courts, as does
that of Norton VS.. Blinn, "a o. Sin
Ohio, that when profits have been real
ICED from transaction mdiAn, prOhibi-
tuns any one entitled to share thereof
may recover-in other words, that joint
tort feasons must divide the profits y,
their wrong. But these cases do not,
neither do any leading ones in the in
ferior Federal courts or the State courts,
decide that q party who has advanced
money, as agent or otherwise, for the
prosecution of an illegal purpose can re.
cover from the person for whom the ad.
vance was made.
Swan VS.. Scott, lis. & r. 1856, the
Supreme Court of Pa, Duncan, j., de
livering the opinion, say: "If the
plaintiff cannot recover without show
Ing he has broken the law, court will
not assist him." and "if the illegalitS
be malun, frohibitum only, the plaintiff
may recover, unless it he directly on tn,
prohibited contract" Scott had beer
agent for Swan in effectinga q sale Of lots
by lottery, and sued to recover his com
pensation. The original suit was arhi
trated and an award for the plaintiff
After wards the plaintiff satisfied the
award on defendant giving a bond fol
the amount. This suit was on the bonf
and it was held that the defendant
after getting satisfaction of the aware
against him and giving q new obliga
tion, could not go back to the origina
transaction, the court saying: "Coult
an inquiry be gone into with respect tt
the alleged Illegal origin of the contrac
between the parties, and which hat
been decided under the compulsory ar
bitration act--if we could look beyont
the record and go back to the frs
cause, then there was error" in tin
court below holding that the plaintiff
could recover, "but if that (the arbitra
tom is final and concluded the right
of the parties, the defense totally failed.
Agnew, j., in Kirkpatrick VS.. Bon
sell, Y Penn.St. l55, says: "We mus
not confound gambling, whether it b.
IN corporation stocks or merchandise
with what is commonly called specula
tion. Merchants operate upon the fli