Gorham v. Keyes
| Decision Date | 27 October 1884 |
| Citation | 137 Mass. 583 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | George W. Gorham v. Charles M. Keyes & others |
Berkshire. Contract upon a promissory note for $ 65, payable to Frank W. Keyes or bearer, and signed by the defendants. The answer alleged that the note was given for an illegal consideration, and that the plaintiff had knowledge thereof when he took it. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury before Brigham, C. J., who ruled that the action could not be maintained, and ordered judgment for the defendants; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
Exceptions overruled.
H. C Joyner, for the plaintiff.
J. Dewey, for the defendants.
Field, J. C. Allen & Colburn, JJ., absent.
Charles M. Keyes was arrested on a complaint charging him with the larceny of property of the value of $ 200. The offence charged was a felony. Gen. Sts. c. 161, § 18; c. 168, § 1. The note in suit was given to Frank W. Keyes, whose property was alleged to have been stolen, and who "threatened to prosecute said complaint to the full extent of the law, unless his claim for his expenditures was paid." The note was given "to pay this claim, and thus induce said Frank W. Keyes to forbear to prosecute said complaint," "and, as a part of the arrangement, said Charles M. Keyes pleaded nolo contendere to the complaint, paid the costs, and it was laid on file." The plaintiff took the note, "having notice of the circumstances."
The court correctly ruled that the action could not be maintained, because it found as a fact that the note was given under an agreement that the complaint should be placed on file, which is in effect an agreement to suppress a criminal prosecution.
The fact that the special justice of the district court before whom Charles M. Keyes was brought for trial informally expressed the opinion that, on the facts stated, the complaint for larceny could not be maintained, seems to us immaterial. Without considering whether it is open to the plaintiff in this action to contend that Charles M. Keyes was not guilty of the offence charged, we think that, when a person is under arrest on a criminal charge, to obtain from him and his friends a promissory note in payment of an alleged claim under a threat of prosecuting the complaint if the note is not given, and under an agreement not to prosecute it if the note is given, is in violation of law, equally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berman v. Coakley
...v. Fisk, 101 Mass. 363, 100 Am. Dec. 124;Taylor v. Jaques, 106 Mass. 291; Partridge v. Hood, 120 Mass. 403, 21 Am. Rep. 524; Gorham v. Keyes, 137 Mass. 583;Traders' National Bank v. Steere, 165 Mass. 389, 43 N. E. 187. The general doctrine is subject to a qualification or exception as widel......
-
Turle v. Sargent
...Steuben Co. Bank v. Mathewson, 5 Hill, 249; Catlin v. Henton, 9 Wis. 476; Schultz v. Catlin, 78 Wis. 611, 47 N.W. 946; Gorham v. Keyes, 137 Mass. 583; Gardner v. Maxey, 9 B. Mon. 90; Greenhood, Pub. pp. 459, 451, note 1; Seear v. Cohen, 45 L. T. N. S. 589 (1881); Welborn v. Norwood, 1 Tex. ......
-
Henderson v. Plymouth Oil Co.
...and under a threat from it that otherwise his son would be prosecuted. The transaction was illegal (Pub. St. c. 205, § 27; Gorham v. Keyes, 137 Mass. 583), and, if the parties stood on an equal footing, neither of them would have a remedy against the other (Atwood v. Fisk, 101 Mass. 363 100......
-
E.P. Wilbur Trust Co. v. Fahrendorf
...all that appears, Bloch may have been innocent. That issue, beyond doubt, would be irrelevant if prosecution had begun. Gorham v. Keyes, 137 Mass. 583, 584;Steuben County Bank v. Mathewson, 5 Hill, 249. We are asked to hold otherwise where prosecution is merely threatened. Some cases do, in......