Case Name: Augustus H. Moore v. Thos. Cassily, Exr.
Court: Hamilton Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1898-10
Citations: 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 305
Docket Number: 
Parties: Augustus H. Moore v. Thos. Cassily, Exr.
Judges: Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Decisions
Volume: 9
Pages: 305–305

Head Matter:
CONTRACTS.
[Hamilton Circuit Court,
October Term, 1898.]
Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.
Augustus H. Moore v. Thos. Cassily, Exr.
Contract Whereby one Public Officer Agrees to Discharge Duties of Another is Void.
A contract by which one public officer agrees to perform the duties of another is against public policy and void.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.
The plaintiff and the testate of the defendant in error were respectively U. S. Inspector of Hulls of steam vessels and U. S., Inspector of Boilers of steam vessels for the district of Cincinnati from January 1880, till May 24, 1894, at the same annual salaries; and defendant being in bad health, requesting plaintiff to assist him, and plaintiff, during the entire period, did perform the greater part of the work connected with plaintiffs office. Suit was brought for this service in the sum of $10,339.30, or at the rate of $60 per month.
,5. T. Crawford, for plaintiff in error.
Charles H. Stephens and Frank M. Cofipock, contra.

Opinion:
Swing, J.
The action in the court of common pleas was to enforce an illegal contract. It was an action on the contract itself, and not an action for an accounting in equity, as was Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall, 79, cited by plaintiff in error; nor does the case come under the principle decided in Horton v. Blinn, 39 O. S., 145, which was to recover money belonging to one in the hands of another. What right in an action on a quantum meruit Moore might have had it is not necessary for us to intimate. It is sufficient to say here that this action is to enforce the contract, which is admitted to be an illegal one, being against public policy.
The judgment below is affirmed.