Court Opinion

ID: 3633013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 00:12:00.646236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:37.539171
License: Public Domain

It must be assumed, we think, that the defendants knew when the agreement was made that they intended to purchase sardines of the kind that were tendered to them, and that the plaintiffs understood that the defendants knew it. It is also inferrable that the defendants entered into the agreement, to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, for the purpose of selling the goods to others in the condition in which they were when delivered. It is also evident that the labels were used to deceive the consumers and not the contractors, and to obtain higher prices for the sardines. The plaintiffs procured and furnished the deceptive labels, after binding themselves by contract to do so, and this was done for an unlawful purpose, and with a view of furnishing goods for the market in a condition calculated to deceive the consumers who might purchase them. It is, therefore, apparent that it was part of the contract that an unlawful object was intended, of which both parties were cognizant, and that it was designed by them, under the contract, to commit a fraud and thus promote an illegal purpose by deceiving other parties. In such a case the courts will not aid either party in carrying out a fraudulent purpose.
To carry out this contract would be contrary to public policy, and in such a case, as we have seen, the court will not aid either party.
Under the Penal Code (§ 438), it is made a misdemeanor to sell or offer for sale any package falsely marked, labeled, etc., as to the place where the goods were manufactured, or the quality or grade, etc. The contract in question would seem to be covered by this provision of the Code, but as the Penal Code did not go into effect until May 1, 1882, and this contract was made June 30, 1881, the section cited has, we think, no bearing on the question presented.
The case was properly disposed of upon the ground first *Page 472 
stated, which is fully considered and elaborated in the opinion of the General Term by SEDGWICK, J., in which we concur.
The judgment should be affirmed.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.