{
  "id": 4904752,
  "name": "William B. Farrow v. Sylvester A. Vedder",
  "name_abbreviation": "Farrow v. Vedder",
  "decision_date": "1886-02-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "305",
  "last_page": "306",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "19 Ill. App. 305"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. 583",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. 173",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill. 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. 468",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5222313
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/44/0468-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. 113",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5224205
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/44/0113-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Gilm. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilm.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 Ill. 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2596608
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/20/0215-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Am. Rep. 674",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "Am. Rep.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ala. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        5612453
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/54/0150-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Mass. 258",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ill. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2803910
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/103/0460-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 Ill. 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2810997
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/102/0523-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 239,
    "char_count": 2702,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.483,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.7452063174764795e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35965861330139326
    },
    "sha256": "7b41b86b0084f3c3cd5845ea8dda5e6c8346bfe54331712213e4b1106f4376df",
    "simhash": "1:1040a6891570e872",
    "word_count": 491
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:07.529816+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William B. Farrow v. Sylvester A. Vedder."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wall, P. J.\nA substantial part of the demand upon which this judgment is based is for the price of certain intoxicating liquors sold at retail and in violation of law, the vendor having no license therefor. The trial court disregarded the defense thus suggested, and the question is whether, as to this item, the recovery can he sustained. The exact point has not, so far as we are advised, been determined in this State, hut the principle involved is well settled.\nThe illegality of a contract is in general a perfect defense. When the law forbids a thing to be- done it will not \u25a0 enforce a contract depending for its consideration upon the thing so forbidden. As one writer has said, \u201cIt is clear no right of action can spring out of an illegal contract; that no action will lie upon a contract made in violation of the statute, or of a principle of the common law;\u201d and to quote from another, \u201c There can be no civil right where there can be no legal remedy, and there can he no legal remedy for that which is itself illegal.\u201d Penn v. Bornman, 102 Ill. 523, and authorities there cited; Workingmen\u2019s Banking Co. v. Rautenberg, 103 Ill. 460.\nThe precise question was so determined in Gloss v. Alt, 17 Kansas, 445; Dolson v. Hope, 7 Kansas, 161. See also Sedgwick on Stat. and Const. Law, 2 Ed. 69 and 70. Wheeler v. Russell, 17 Mass. 258.\nA similar question arose in Woods v. Armstrong, 54 Ala. 150, and in a very elaborate note to this case in 25 Am. Rep. 674, will be found an interesting and valuable review of decisions in England and the Hnited States.\nWe think upon principle and the great weight of authority the plaintiff had no cause of action as to the liquors sold in violation of law. The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wall, P. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. James R. Ward, for appellant;",
      "Mr. Edwin A. Doolittle, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William B. Farrow v. Sylvester A. Vedder.\nIllegal sale. \u2014 Where a substantial part of the demand upon which a Judgment was based was for the price of certain intoxicating liquors sold at retail and in violation of law, the vendor having no license therefor, held, that the vendor had no cause of action as to the liquors sold in violation of law.\nAppeal from the County Court of Greene county; the Hon. L. R. Lakes', Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed February 25, 1886.\nMr. James R. Ward, for appellant;\nthat the law will not furnish the plaintiff a remedy to enforce the payment of a demand which grows out of an illegal or immoral transaction, cited Nash v. Monheimer, 20 Ill. 215; Munsell v. Temple, 3 Gilm. 94; Liness v. Hesing, 44 Ill. 113; Arter v. Byington, 44 Ill. 468; Cin. Mut. H. A. Co. v. Rosenthal, 55 Ill. 91; Neustadt v. Hall, 58 Ill. 173; Henderson v. Palmer, 71 Ill. 583.\nMr. Edwin A. Doolittle, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0305-01",
  "first_page_order": 303,
  "last_page_order": 304
}