New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-02-04
TT IS AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT.
THE eHERBURNEHOEY sui.

JUSTICE INGRAHAM DIsMISsES THE CoNrhNiNA
HIS OPINION.
rrs+ce Incrabam I'm the Supreme Court yesterday
handed down a decision dsmissins the complaint III
the sut of Henry C.. SIerburne against Ed"au a. ia''
CIapp Spooner and John lioey. The merits vi w
case AGAINST Mr. IIOey not passed on AT all INV
ever Justice Ingralam declaring that the coht'a' o
which the suit was based was Illegal ana 'ha' 'o
oucntIy the courts will not have anything to 90 "ltii
:, An effort was made on the trial to prevent the
co,+,ct from bcnc made pat Of the case, Nut JUS
,c nrabam SAWS that he Is obliged To take cognzahoe
Of # I'm dpoSing OF the 1t was IN consequence
NJ tbi, suit that the trouble occurred between JONI
lIoey and the Adams Express Company
Mr. Shcrburnc sued Mr. lIoey and the otnerS hlen-
TONED for about 100000 alleged to be due IN cohse
gnence OF a sale Of stock Of the Newfork and Boston
Dc.natch Expres, Company the Knsey Express Com
many and the Union Express Company TO the ADAMS
Exprss Company half Of the stock OF these com
NAMES WA, acquired about by the parties to the
suit of Sherburne against Hoey for 9'3o''' VIM"
was alleged to be the full value OF the Soc"' ''o
oucntly II was sold 10 the Adams Express Company
FOR S25OOOO. The other half OF the stock Oh u'rse
companies was acquired some time IN 1855 TOT q'oo'
and sold TO the Adams Express Company shortly ater
tho nurchase for 100000. Mr. Sherburne alleged
that he did not get his share OF the prohs 10 winch nc
wa, entitled under the agreement which ne had WIN
Mr. Hoey and Taft for the sale OF the last Hall vi
he
Illegal agreement becauc Of the connection OF W.T. hoey
with the Adams Express Company at The time ue saie
WAS made 10 it, In his opinion dsmlSsing the com
plant Justice Ing aham says:
The fact that IlOey and SpOOner had An interest," III
The property was not at any time communicated "
Mr. Dinsmore or any other officer OF the Adams TX
press Company, and Defendants Spooner and lioey
occupy the place Of purchasing on behalf OF the cor
u-tlon Of which they are property belonging
,o themselves conccng from their associates the fact
that they were part Of the property for 5000
900 and for which they had paid $4,000, and inc
letter, from plaintiff introduced in evidence clearly
establish tie fact that he recognized the relations tia'
existed between spooner and liocy to the company.
1T wa, AN agreement to give a share of the profits
To Spooner and IOer 10 induce them to commit breach
Of trust and it having succeeded, the Court VIII not
aid any of the parties TO such an agreement 10 d'u'
The amount received, or in any way enforce such an
agreement.
Taft then proceeded to divide the proceeds and
prons each share amounting 10 SlO5 600, and Hoey,
who had contributed nothing for the purchase OF le
property, Insisted receiving something Ill excess vi
that amount making claim that he was entitled TO Il
portion of the dividends profits realized du1ng tl9
time between which the interest was purchased ana
the time il was finally sold 10 the Adams Express
COMPANY and Taft finally agreed that In satisfaction
q, such lam he should be paid $1,000 which was PAD
I'D him. hc thus receiving his Share OF the profits OF
t.c transaction the sum Of SllOOOO.' .
Tai stand, in different lgh,, judge lngrahhm say
IL Is true he SAYS the sum was the pVrl.ta
of carving out Illegal agreement but upon ulo
receipt Of the plaintiffs money by iai' inc ODlsa'o D
original agreement but upon the obligation OF the agent
who hold, the principals money To account TO MN
for H. The obi -atOn ~ TAFT 10 account can De en-
orcrd without proving original Illegal agreement
and 20 compel Taft to perform the obleation + not M
r,cmcut OF such Agreement. ON thc proofs, how
ever. do not think the plaintiff /, entitled to iudS
mcnl In tll7 acuoh.'