Adams Express Co. v. Reno

• Citation: 48 Mo. 264
• Parties: ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY, Appellant, v. JOHN RENO, CLINTON RENO, INTERPLEADER, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 31 July 1871
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

48 Mo. 264

ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY, Appellant,

v.JOHN RENO, CLINTON RENO, INTERPLEADER, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1871.

Appeal from Cole Circuit Court.

Lay & Belch, for appellant.

All the evidence of the agreement between Ballinger and Clinton Reno to obtain the pardon of John Reno, and tending to show that the money was sent to Jefferson City to be paid to Ballinger alone, was wholly inadmissible in support of the claim of the interpleader. The agreement itself, and the object and purpose of sending the money to this State, were against public policy and contrary to good morals, and a party basing his cause of action upon such a state of facts, and alleging his own turpitude, cannot be heard in a court of justice. (Chit. Cont. 657, 673; Adams, Adm'r of Rose, v. Barrett, 5 Ga. 404; Fales et al. v. Mayberry, 2 Gall., U. S., 560; Bartle v. Coleman, 4 Pet. 184; Dixon v. Olmstead, 9 Verm. 310; Randall v. Howard, 2 Black, 585; Clippenger v. Hepbaugh, 5 Watts & Serg. 315; Wooten et al. v. Miller, 7 Sm. & M. 380; Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat. 258; Roby v. West, 4 N. H. 290; Ellsworth et al. v. Mitchell, 31 Me. 247; Dix v. Van Wyck, 2 Hill, 522; Rose et al. v. Truax, 21 Barb., N. Y., 361; Guenther v. Dewein, 11 Iowa, 133; White v. Hunter, 3 Foster, N. H., 128; Swan v. Scott, 11 Serg. & R. 155; Clugas v. Penaluna, 4 T. R. 251, 466; Warnell v. Reed, 5 T. R. 304; Kribben v. Haycraft, 26 Mo. 396; Hatzfield v. Gulden, 7 Watts, 152.)

H. B. Johnson, for respondent.

There is no doubt that the arrangement between Ballinger and Reno in regard to the pardon is, as a contract, void as against public policy. (Kribben v. Haycraft, 26 Mo. 396.) But where a person advances money on an unexecuted contract, though the contract be void as against public policy, he may recover it back at any time before the money is delivered or the contract fully executed. (Skinner v. Henderson, 10 Mo. 205; Humphreys v. Magee, 13 Mo. 435; Gowan v. Gowan, 30 Mo. 472; Mount v. Waite, 7 Johns. 434; Vischer v. Yates, 11 Johns. 23; Wheeler v. Spencer, 15 Conn. 28; McAlister v. Hoffman, 16 Serg. & R. 147; Rucker v. Wynne, 2 Head, 617; House v. Kenney, 46 Me. 94; Shannon v. Banner, 10 Iowa, 210.)

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit instituted by attachment, by the plaintiff, an incorporated company, against John Reno, a convict in the Missouri penitentiary, to recover damages for a robbery alleged to have been committed by him at Seymour, Indiana. John Reno appeared by attorney, and filed an answer denying all the material allegations in the petition. Over $4,000 in United States currency was attached in the hands of the Jefferson City Savings Association as his property. Clinton Reno appeared and filed his interplea, claiming the money attached as his property. To this interplea there was an answer filed, and upon the issue as thus made up the cause was tried. After hearing the evidence, the jury rendered their verdict, finding that the property belonged to the interpleader, and upon this verdict the court gave judgment in his behalf. From that finding and judgment the plaintiff appealed to this court.

The appellant complains in the first instance of the action of the court in refusing to grant a continuance. When the cause was called for trial an affidavit was submitted praying for a continuance on the ground of the absence of material witnesses, whose testimony could not be obtained or produced at the trial at that term. The affidavit was entitled “The Adams Express Co., plaintiff, against John Reno, Clinton Reno, D. A. Wilson, P. T. Miller and Philip E. Chappell, garnishees, defendants.”

The court overruled the motion for a continuance, for the reason that it did not appear that the affidavit had any reference to the controversy pending between the appellant and the interpleader. The affidavit was distinctly entitled as in the cause of the appellant against John Reno and the garnishees in that action; and as the issue joined on the interplea constituted a wholly separate cause, there was nothing to show that the affidavit was made with any reference to this proceeding. Under such circumstances we cannot say that the court erred or abused its discretion in refusing the continuance.

Upon the merits the facts seem to be these: John Reno was sentenced to the Missouri penitentiary for robbing the county treasury of Davies county. The County Court of Davies county authorized Ballinger, the sheriff of that county, to submit a proposition to Clinton Reno, that if he (Clinton) would pay the sum of $5,000 toward reimbursing the county of the amount robbed, then the judges of the County Court and Ballinger would use their influence with the governor to procure a pardon for John. In accordance with this proposition, Clinton Reno, who resided in Indiana, endeavored to raise the $5,000 for the purpose contemplated, but could only obtain the sum of $4,400. This amount he sent by his sister Laura to this State, thinking that Ballinger might be induced to take it and effect the pardon. He instructed Laura to bring the money back with her in case the pardon was not procured, and to pay it to no one but Ballinger. When she arrived at Jefferson City she did not see Ballinger, and nothing was done toward a pardon; and when she was about to return home she was persuaded by Wilson, the warden of the penitentiary, to leave the money with him, and that Ballinger might come and accept it. She informed him of Clinton's instructions as to bringing the money back, but was finally induced to leave it. Wilson gave her a receipt for it, and then deposited it in the bank for use of John Reno. When Laura returned home Clinton was greatly displeased with the disposition she had made of the money, and expressed his decided disapprobation of her course in disobeying his instructions. John Reno was never pardoned, nor does it appear that any efforts were made looking to that end. It is now insisted that, as the money was to be used for an illegal purpose, the law will not assist Clinton to recover it, or in anywise help him in regaining its possession.

No principle is better settled than that a contract in violation of law or against public policy cannot be enforced in the courts of the country. In all such cases the courts will not interfere, and the parties will be left where their conduct has placed them. An agreement to pay a certain sum for the exercise of influence in procuring a pardon or the commutation of a sentence is utterly void as against public policy, and...