{
  "id": 1864502,
  "name": "Tatum, et al., v. Kelley",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tatum v. Kelley",
  "decision_date": "1868-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "209",
  "last_page": "212",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 Ark. 209"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "11 Wheat., 258",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wheat.",
      "case_ids": [
        1428677
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/24/0258-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Dana, 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dana",
      "case_ids": [
        2059184
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ky/34/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Ala., 250",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        8493667
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/5/0250-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 336,
    "char_count": 5067,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.36,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.4343637277368564e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9209260848798521
    },
    "sha256": "d1833c2ac93312bcf9fd6fbba7786b204824765b76b747c4c5036418654b57b1",
    "simhash": "1:2f197ae0ca8996cb",
    "word_count": 882
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:02:20.284265+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Tatum, et al., v. Kelley."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "IIarrison, J.\nThis is an action on a promissory note for one thousand dollars, made by defendants to F, L. Gilbko, dated July 11, 1861, and payable\u2019 on the 1st day of March, thereafter, indorsed to I. F. J. Spach, and by him to the plaintiff.\nThe defendants, besides the general issue, pleaded, first, that the consideration of the note were guns, purchased from the payee by the defendants, to arm men to wage war against' the United States, in the rebellion, which intention and purpose, were well known to the payee at the time of the sale; secondly,} in addition to the above averments, the plaintiff' knew said facts at the time when the note was assigned to him.\nDemurrers were sustained to these pleas; a trial upon the plea of- general'issuo, and a verdict and judgment for the plain-' tiff. The defendants complained here that the court erred in sustaining the demurrers.\nNo principle is better settled than that contracts that contravene the law are void, and that courts will never lend their aid in enforcing them. Illegal contracts are not such only as stipulate for something that is unlawful; but, where the intention of one of the parties is to enable the other to violate the law, the contract is corrupted by such illegal intention, and is void. Pratt v. Adams, 7 Paige, 615; The Branch Bank at Montgomery v. Crocheron, et al., 5 Ala., 250; Beach v. Kezar, 1 New Hamp., 184; Steele v. Curle, 4 Dana, 381; Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat., 258; Giraday v. Richardson, 1 Esp., 13; Langton v. Hughes, 1 Maule & Selwgn, 593; Lightfoot, et al., v. Tenant, 1 Bos. & Pull., 551; Farmer v. Russell, et al., 1 Bos. & Pull., 295.\nWe are aware that there are cases in which it is hold that mere knowledge by the seller of the buyer\u2019s intention to use the goods purchased for an unlawful purpose does not invalidate the contract. Wo have no inclination to question the correctness of these decisions, or of the rule declared by them, but it can have no application where the contract is so connected with an illegal transaction or purpose as to be inseparable from it.\nIn Lightfoot, et al., v. Tenant, referred to above, Chief Justice Eyre said: \u201cUpon the principles of the common law, the consideration of every valid contract must be meritorious. The sale and delivery of goods, nay, the agreement to sell and deliver goods, is, prima facie, a meritorious consideration to support a contract for the price. But the man who sold arsenic to one whom he knew intended to poison his wife with it, would \u00a1not be allowed to maintain an action upon his contract. The consideration of the contract, in itself good, is there tainted with turpitude, which destroys the whole merit of it.\u201d\nWe do not know that it is possible to find a rule by which to determine when a party, with knowledge of the other\u2019s illegal purpose, \u201cmay be,\u201d to use the language of Chief J ustice Robertson, in Steele v. Curle, \u201c neutral without being guilty of incivism, or of-any intentional participation in the unlawful design;\u201d but, for the decision of this case, more is, required. By selling the guns, with knowledge of the use for which they were intended, the payee of the note concurred with and actively promoted the unlawful and treasonable purpose of the defendants.\nThe maker of a note is not, by the assignment, deprived of any defense which he had against the assignor previous to the assignment. See. 3, chap. 15, Digest; and see Smith v. Copers, 13 Ark.; Robinson v. Swigart, ib., 71; Walker, ad., et al., v. Johnson, et al., ib., 522. The averment of notice to the plaintiff, at the time of the assignment to him, of the illegality of the consideration, in the third plea, was, therefore, mere surplusage.\nThe court erred in sustaining the plaintiff\u2019s demurrers. The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "IIarrison, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cakleton, Garland & Nash, for appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Tatum, et al., v. Kelley.\nContracts \u2014 void when -in aid, of rebellion. Contracta which contravene the law are void; and courts will never lend tlieir aid to enforce them.\n\"Where the intention of one of the parties is to enable the other to violate the law, the contract is void.\nThe rule that mere knowledge by the seller of the buyer\u2019s intention to use the goods purchased for an\u2019 unlawful purpose, does not invalidate the contract, does not apply to a case where the contract is so connected with an illegal transaction or purpose as to he inseparable from it.\nWhere the payee of a note, sold in consideration thereof guns, which he knew would he used in aid of the rebellion against the Government, he concurred with and actively promoted the treasonable purpose of the buyer.\nPromissory notes \u2014 assignment\u2014pleading. The maker of a note is not, by an assignment, deprived of any defense which he had as against the assignor previous to the assignment.\nIn the plea of the maker of a note, the averment that the plaintiff, who is assignee thereof, had notice at the time of the assignment of the illegality of the consideration, is surplusage.\nAppeal from Union Circuit Court.\nHon. John T. Bearden, Circuit Judge.\nCakleton, Garland & Nash, for appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0209-01",
  "first_page_order": 233,
  "last_page_order": 236
}