86 So. 298 (Miss. 1920), 21248, C. M. & E. G. Ham v. Wilson

Docket Nº:21248
Citation:86 So. 298, 123 Miss. 510
Opinion Judge:SAM COOK, P.J.
Party Name:C. M. & E. G. HAM v. WILSON
Attorney:Watson & Jayne, for appellants. Boddie & Farish, for appellee.
Court:Supreme Court of Mississippi

Page 298

86 So. 298 (Miss. 1920)

123 Miss. 510

C. M. & E. G. HAM



No. 21248

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October, 1920

SALES. Not enforcable, where consideration is illegal or immoral.

Courts will not enforce a contract based on immoral or illegal objects, since no court of justice can be made the handmaid of Iniquity.

HON. H. H. ELMORE, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Washington county, HON. H. H. ELMORE, Judge.

Action in replevin by C. M. & E. G. Ham against Bessie Wilson. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.


Watson & Jayne, for appellants.

As recited in the statement of facts, the action in this case was one of replevin upon which trial was had in the lower court and a jury and verdict returned for the defendant and a judgment rendered thereon. At the trial, the appellants made their case in substance as follows: That the furniture in question was sold to appellee under written contracts of conditional sale, with reservation of title in appellants; that default had been made in the installment payments and goods thereafter detained by appellee, and the goods were seized under writ of replevin; that the goods thus seized were the goods sold under the installment contracts. A statement of the condition of the account between appellants and appellee under these sales was made, showing a balance owing by appellee to appellants of five hundred forty dollars and fifteen cents, with overdue installments and the value of each item of the goods sold was proven.

Thus, a case for appellant was made and could be overcome only by defendant showing a good defense. This she attempted to do through the two defenses set up as recited [123 Miss. 511] in the statement of fact: (A) That the goods in question were sold by appellants to appellee for the purpose of equipping and operating a house of ill-fame, and where to be paid for out of whatever such house should yield. (B) The partial defense that the goods covered by the conditional sales contracts of May 12, 1916, July 17, 1916, and October 30, 1917, had been paid for by application of payment.

We submit that the evidence fails to show that appellant knew of and for what purpose the goods were being purchased by appellee. The guilty use of the property in question, as well as guilty knowledge of the contemplated guilty use thereof being...

To continue reading