Court Opinion

ID: 9832526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:58:50.173935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:47.690549
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellee has filed a most able argument in support of its motion for rehearing, to which due consideration has been given.
It is earnestly insisted that the transaction and contract in question is not malum in se, is not contrary to good morals, and does not injuriously affect the rights of citizens of this state; therefore the rule of public policy upon which the decision is based has no application. The rule has been most frequently applied, perhaps, in cases of that character, but it is not limited thereto. It applies also to contracts directly originating in and based upon transactions which contravene the positive policy of the law of the forum. See 5 R. C. L. title “Conflict of Laws,” §§ 5, 31, and 41, and authorities there cited; note in 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 651. In this connection see, also, Consolidated Garage Co. v. Chambers, 111 Tex. 293, 231 S. W. 1072; Crosby v. Huston, 1 Tex. 203. It would be difficult to imagine a policy more plainly manifested than that evidenced by our constitutional and statutory provisions, both state and national, relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor. This policy makes it the duty of our courts to deny enforcement to any contract directly based upon a'trans*291action in substantial conflict with these laws, regardless of its validity elsewhere.
In support of its contention that this court erred in holding that the sale of the corporate stock, in substance, constituted a sale of an interest in intoxicating liquors and a retail liquor business, many authorities are cited to the effect that title to corporate assets is vested in the corporation, and not in the stockholders. We, of course, recognize that the legal title is so vested, and our opinion is not to be construed as in any wise conflicting fvith that well-established principle.
Still adhering to the view that the correct disposition has been made of this appeal, the motion for rehearing is overruled.