Dieckmann v. Robyn

• Decision Date: 05 December 1911
• Citation: 162 Mo. App. 67,141 S.W. 717
• Parties: DIECKMANN v. ROBYN.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

141 S.W. 717

162 Mo. App. 67

DIECKMANN v. ROBYN.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 5, 1911.

1. CONTRACTS (§ 113)—LEGALITY OF OBJECT —PUBLIC POLICY.

Where a contract between a stockholder in a bank about to be organized, who, with two others, controlled the majority of the stock, and an owner of land, provided that, if such stockholder would procure the purchase of such land by securing the votes of such other stockholders, the owner of the land would pay him one-half the amount secured therefor above a certain sum, it was a constructive fraud upon such bank and upon other stockholders, and void as against public policy.

2. CONTRACTS (§ 138)—LEGALITY OF OBJECT —PUBLIC POLICY.

The defendant in an action on a contract may object that the contract is void as against public policy, even though he confesses his participation therein by demurring to the complaint, since the law will not enforce an illegal contract.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Charles County; James D. Barnett, Judge.

Action by A. C. Dieckmann against Ernest Robyn. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff's petition, and from this judgment plaintiff prosecutes the appeal. Omitting caption and signatures, the petition is as follows: "Plaintiff by leave of court first had and obtained files this his amended petition, and for cause of action states that on the 18th day of July, 1907, defendant, who was then the owner of certain real estate, situate in the city and county of St. Charles, Mo., employed plaintiff to aid him to sell the same to a corporation then about to be organized and to be known as the Central Bank of St. Charles, Mo.; that at the time of said employment this plaintiff, together with one Adam Peifer and August Barthel, had subscribed for and were entitled to 51 shares of stock in said bank to be organized and to be known as the Central Bank of St. Charles, Mo.; that it was agreed between plaintiff and defendant that if the plaintiff, after the said bank was organized, would vote the stock held by himself in said bank, and also procure and induce the said Peifer and Barthel to vote the stock held by them in said bank in a stockholders' meeting to be thereafter called, in favor of purchasing defendant's said real estate for the sum of $15,000, and if the stockholders of said bank at said meeting should vote for said purchase and did purchase said real estate for the sum of $15,000, the plaintiff should receive as compensation for his services in so helping defendant to effect a sale to said Central Bank one-half of all money obtained for said real estate in excess of $12,500, after deducting from the sale price of said real estate a certain other commission of 2 per cent. on the amount of the sale price to be paid...