Case Name: AUGUSTUS H. MOORE v. THOS. CASSILY, Executor of Henry H. Devenney, Deceased
Court: Ohio Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1898-10
Citations: 16 Ohio C.C. 708
Docket Number: 
Parties: AUGUSTUS H. MOORE v. THOS. CASSILY, Executor of Henry H. Devenney, Deceased.
Judges: Before Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the circuit courts of Ohio
Volume: 16
Pages: 708–708

Head Matter:
(First Circuit — Hamilton Co., O., Circuit Court
Oct. Term, 1898.)
Before Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.
AUGUSTUS H. MOORE v. THOS. CASSILY, Executor of Henry H. Devenney, Deceased.
A contract by which one public officer contracts to perform the duties of another is against public policy and illegal, and can not be enforced.
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, requested plaintiff to assist him, and plaintiff, during the entire period, did perform the greater part of the work connected with plaintiff’s office. Suit was brought for this service in the sum of $10,339.30, or at the rate of $60 per month.
8. T, Crawford, for plaintiff in error.
Charles H. Stephens,and Frank M, Coppook, 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 the case in 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 Ohio St., 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.