Case Name: HAYNES et al. v. ABRAMSON
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-01-16
Citations: 97 N.Y.S. 371
Docket Number: 
Parties: HAYNES et al. v. ABRAMSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 97
Pages: 371–373

Head Matter:
HAYNES et al. v. ABRAMSON.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
January 16, 1906.)
1. Contracts—Illegality—Pleading.
The defense of illegality of a contract, under Pen. Code, § 640d, making it a misdemeanor to offer real property for sale without written authority, must be pleaded to be availed of.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 11, Cent. Dig. Contracts, §§ 1716, 1728.]
2. Same.
Where a contract, not unlawful in itself, is executed, and the parties have enjoyed its benefits, the fact that one of them has violated a penal statute in the approach to the contract will not prevent a court from enforcing payment.
MacLean, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Bronx, Second District.
Action by Webster D. Haynes and another against Abram G. Abramson. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BISCHOFF and MacLEAN, JJ.
Charles Stein, for appellant.
William N. Ingram, for respondents.

Opinion:
SCOTT, P. J.
The defense of illegality, founded upon section 640d, of the Penal Code, is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded in order to be availed of. It was not so pleaded here. Furthermore, Cody v. Dempsey, 86 App. Div. 335, 83 N. Y. Supp. 899, is authority for the proposition that, where a contract not unlawful in itself has been executed, and the parties have enjoyed the benefits of the contract, the mere fact that one of the parties has violated a penal statute in the approach to the contract will not prevent a court from enforcing payment. This is criticised by the appellant as obiter dictum, and so, perhaps, it is, although stating a salutary and well-established rule. At all events it is no more obviously dictum than the statement in Whitely v. Terry, 83 App. Div. 197, 82 N. Y. Supp. 89, as to the validity and effect of section 640d of the Penal Code.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
BISCHOFF, J., concurs.