Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1884-02-21
THE NORTHWEST.
fOrlginsl
OPTION CONTRACTS-ARE THEY
LEGAL?
tCOncluded.i

who is pdrficeDs eriBgiHsiS, he cannot recover i0
avoid or escape the consequences OF his Illegal trans
actions by appearing a. the agent Of another. II
such trasactiOns all are principals.
1t must he admitted that the court:
will COMPEL division or accounting oi
Illegal gains between joint wrong doers,
when the illegal transaction has been
completed and the fruits thereof ac-
quired by one, and il may seem difficult
on strictly logical princicles, to explain
why if the one has a right to share in
the profits he shall not be compelled to
respond TO losses. The distinction is,
however, tracable in all the reported.
cases.
In Tenant VS.. Elliot, Bos. & Pull. 8,
the defendant, a broker, obtained an
insurance for the plaintiff on goods
shipped to the East Indies, in violation
of an act of Parliament. The goods
were lost and the defendant received the
insurance money. The illegality of the
shipment and insurance was the de-
fense. Eyre, C. j., said: "The defend
ant is not like a stock-broker. The
question is, whether he who has re-
ceived money to another's use on any
illegal transaction can be allowed to re-
tain it, and that not even at the desire
of those who paid it to him. think
he cannot"
The distinction is clearly made in the
case of Fareira vs.. Gabell, supra. by
Judge Hare, when he says that one who
lends money to another with which to
make a wager may possibly recover it,
but that he who makes the wager for
another and advances the money can
not recover. Courts will not aid party
IN recovering money which he has lost
by his own wrong or folly; but when an
illegal transaction has been consumat-
ed, one of the parties cannot make the
wrong pretense for perpetrating
another wrong. To compel one parly
to pay his share Of the losses in a Joint
Illegal transaction would really be carry
ing out and enforcing the very contract
which public policy and good morals
forbids; but, when the contract has been
executed, and one partner has
received money due his co-partner, to
allow him to cheat his co-partner out of
1t simply because the original transac-
tlon was not exactly lawful, would be
perpetrating another wrong. Public
policy does not require this, in fact it
rather requires division and honest ac-
ton. To hold that in all eases where
profits have been made by transactions
not lawful, one partner may grab and
aold onto all the profits, would be en-
'biing one person to take advantage of q
lls own wrong, would be sustaining dis
and encouraging bad men TO /
cad Others into such transactions. =
There are contracts, (Wharton on Con- =
racts, See. 345) (which it is against the :
policy o the law to enforce, and yet the =
rults of which a person can obtain '
rom party uniustly holding them. It :,
nay be against the policy of the law to - -
pecitlcally execute such contracts, vet {"
may not be against the policy of the " W
aw to treat them, when executed. rs VI
wing title. In such cases the circum- - =,
Eances that the relief is asked by par " "
who is pdrticeps criminis is not in o'
guilty material. The reason is that the 81 81
ublic interest requires that relief should II
e given and it is given the public h,
trough the party" l.,
In sampson vs. Shaw, 1O1 Mass. 145, III
mes, D., says: "Although it is very nj
lear that the law will not aid one par- ~
to an illegal contract, to enforce it, SO ~.
II as it remains executory, against the r
tiler, it is equally clear that it will not A
lteriere to restore the party who has br
ald the money. In other words, the tu
w will not help either parity" In such hi
lses the maxim, IN pori dehcto, potts fe,
eondat1o defendentis, is applicable. in
Mcllvaine, j., in Norton VS.. Blinn, er
y. s.. says: "If the agent rcceiv- br
g such money had not been employed tn
conducting such business, it would co
EN- to be quite upon principles of pur- ca.
L morality that he should account to br
$ principal therefor; but when the his
le employment of the agent was to tn,
anage and conduct the unlawful st,
ansaction, it seems. to me, a much Fo
ore difficult question arises. In the s
.ter case the agent is particeps Grim ter
rs. In offenses against trade and the of
'e, the law regulating the adninistra- bro
N of penal justice, does not recognize pri
relation of principal and agent, un- but
IS the agent be an innocent instru- vii
ent merely. In such eases the guilty ex,
ehders against the law are all princi- inc
Is; hence, as between such, with some oh,
DW OF reason, it might be said that the liv,
will afford no redress ,of civil rene- 9th
IS" This was case where Norton, the
the agent or broker of Blinn had on
liized money on Blinn's Investment, ira,
IN an Illegal option deal, and the ger
lrt held that Norton must account to inc
mn, his principal, for the money so Pix
llzed, quoting from Woods on Master ten
l Servant, see. 2O2: "While the the
'rts will not enforce an illegal con- trao
ct, yet if u servant or agent of anoth- the
las in tho nroooo,+;, .,,