Holt v. Green

• Decision Date: 17 March 1873
• Citation: 73 Pa. 198
• Parties: Holt <I>versus</I> Green.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

73 Pa. 198

Holt versus Green.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

February 24, 1873.

March 17, 1873.

February 24th 1873.

Before READ, C. J., AGNEW, SHARSWOOD, WILLIAMS and MERCUR, JJ.

Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: No. 73, to January Term 1871 W. W. Montgomery and R. L. Ashhurst, for plaintiff in error.— The Act of Congress must be construed as affecting only the right to sue in the United States courts, since it would be unconstitutional if considered as affecting the right of action of a citizen of a state in the state courts. The Congress of the United States cannot prescribe rules of evidence in state courts, nor can it make the courts of a state the machinery for enforcing national laws: Prigg v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 Peters 539; Latham v. Scott, 45 Ill. 27; Heister v. Cobb, 1 Bush 239; Carpenter v. Snelling, 97 Mass. 452; Lynch v. Moore, Id. 458; People v. Gates, 43 N. Y. 40; Clemens v. Conrad, 19 Mich. 190; Griffin v. Ramsey, 35 Conn. 239.

L. C. Cleemann and G. Sergeant, for defendant in error.—Courts of justice will not assist a plaintiff in recovering under a contract made in violation of the law: Maybin v. Coulon, 4 Yeates 34; Mitchell v. Smith, 1 Binney 118; Seidenbender v. Charles, 4 S. & R. 159; Columbia Bank v. Haldeman, 7 W. & S. 235; Biddis v. James, 6 Binney 329; Evans v. Hall, 9 Wright 236; Bowman v. Coffroth, 9 P. F. Smith 19; Smith v. Mahood, 14 M. & W. 452; Marshall v. Railroad Co., 16 Howard 334; Tripp v. Bishop, 6 P. F. Smith 430.

The opinion of the court was delivered, March 17th 1873, by MERCUR, J.

The plaintiff brought this suit to recover commissions for the sale of certain machinery sold by him for defendant. It appeared upon the trial of the cause, that the plaintiff was carrying on the business of a commercial broker, and as such broker rendered the services for which the commissions were claimed. He also testified that he had not taken out a license nor paid a special tax, under the Act of Congress. Upon this the learned judge nonsuited the plaintiff and judgment was entered thereon. This is assigned for error.

The question thus presented is, did the plaintiff's omission to pay the tax and obtain the license as a commercial broker, bar his recovery of commissions for services rendered as such broker.

The Act of Congress of June 30th 1864, sect. 71, provides, that no person * * * shall be engaged in prosecuting or carrying on any trade, business or profession hereafter mentioned and described until he * * shall have obtained a license therefor, in the manner, hereinafter provided. Section 73 provides, that any person carrying on the business without a license, shall be liable for each offence to a certain fine and imprisonment therein specified.

Sect. 79 provides that commercial brokers shall pay twenty dollars for each license. Any person whose business it is as a broker to negotiate sales or purchases of goods, wares, products or merchandise shall be regarded a commercial broker under this act.

An action founded upon a violation of the laws of the United States or of this state, cannot be maintained in the courts of this state: Maybin v. Coulon, 4 Dall. 298; S. C. 4 Yeates 24.

It is not necessary that the statute should expressly declare the contract to be void. An action founded upon a transaction prohibited by a statute, cannot be maintained, although a penalty be imposed for violating the law: Seidenbender et al. v. Charles's Admrs., 4 S. & R. 159. Hence where a contract is made about a contract or thing which is prohibited and made unlawful by statute, it is void, though the statute itself does not declare it shall be so, but only inflicts a penalty on the offender: Columbia Bridge Co. v. Halderman, 7 W. & S. 233. Nor is there any distinction in this state, whether the contract is malum prohibitum or malum in se: Id. 235.

The test whether a demand connected with an illegal transaction is capable of being enforced by law, is whether the plaintiff requires the aid of the illegal transaction to establish his case: Swan v. Scot, 11 S. & R. 164; Thomas v. Brady, 10 Barr 170; Scott v. Duffy, 2 Harris 20. If a plaintiff cannot open his case without showing that he has broken the law, a court will not assist him: Thomas v. Brady, supra. It has been well said that the objection may often sound very ill in the mouth of a defendant, but it is not for his sake the objection is allowed, it is founded on general principles of policy which he shall have the advantage of, contrary to the real justice between the parties. That principle of public policy is that no court will lend its aid to a party who grounds his action upon an immoral or upon an illegal act: Mitchell v. Smith, 1 Binn. 118; Seidenbender v. Charles's Admrs., supra. The principle to be extracted from all the...