Gibbs v. Smith
| Decision Date | 26 September 1874 |
| Citation | 115 Mass. 592 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | N. G. Gibbs & another v. L. C. Smith |
Hampden. Contract to recover for the breach of the following written agreement signed by the parties thereto: "An agreement made this day between N. G. Gibbs, S. A. Cornell L. C. Smith and J. C. Kingsley, that the said Gibbs and Cornell will not bid or influence any one to bid, and will not accept the contract of any one else; and further, the said Kingsley agrees to pay the said Gibbs and Cornell the sum of five hundred dollars if he gets the contract of the jail for the coming three years; and further, the said Smith agrees to pay said Gibbs and Cornell eight hundred dollars if he accepts the contract of the jail for the next three years and runs it."
At the trial in the Supervisor Court, before Wilkinson, J., the plaintiffs offered to prove that the agreement related to the letting upon bids advertised for by the overseers of the house of correction of Hampden County, for the services and labor for three years, of the inmates of the house of correction of the county; that they fully performed their agreement, and that the defendant accepted the contract of the jail as specified in the agreement and runs it, and although requested by plaintiffs to pay them the sum of eight hundred dollars, according to the terms of said agreement refuses so to do; that the plaintiffs, by reason of favoritism, would not have obtained the contract if they had made bids therefor; and that the county was, therefore, in no manner injured by the agreement of said parties.
Upon these offers the presiding judge ruled that the plaintiffs could not maintain their action, on the ground that the agreement was against public policy and void, and directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiffs alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
E. B Gillett & H. B. Stevens, for the plaintiffs. The ruling of the court, that the plaintiffs could not maintain their action on the ground that the agreement was against public policy and void, was wrong. Although prima facie it might be considered obnoxious to this objection, the offer of the plaintiffs to prove the favoritism which would prevent the plaintiffs obtaining the jail contract, whatever their bid might be, relieves the agreement of that objection, and introduces a praiseworthy motive on the part of the plaintiffs, and such proof would unquestionably be in aid of public policy and public morals. B...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Standard Oil Co.
...Swan v. Chorpenning, 20 Cal. 182; State v. Standard Oil Co., 49 Ohio St. 137, 30 N. E. 279, 15 L. R. A. 145, 34 Am. St. Rep. 541; Gibbs v. Smith, 115 Mass. 592; Richardson v. Buhl, 77 Mich. 632, 43 N. W. 1102, 6 L. R. A. 457; Pacific Co. v. Adler, 90 Cal. 110, 27 Pac. 36, 25 Am. St. Rep. 10......
-
United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.
... ... business at that port. The court (composed of Sir Barnes ... Peacock, Sir Montague E. Smith, and Sir Robert P. Collier) ... describes the scope and purposes of the agreement and the ... view of the court as follows: ... 'The ... additional reason for holding the contracts invalid that the ... parties were engaged in a quasi public employment. They ... are Gibbs v. Gass Co., 130 U.S. 396, 9 Sup.Ct. 553; ... People v. Chicago Gas Trust Co., 130 Ill. 268, 22 ... N.E. 798; Stockton v. Railroad Co., 50 ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Dyer
...fish exchange. This also constituted a common law crime. Reg. v. Lewis, 11 Cox, C. C. 404; King v. DeBerenger, 3 M. & S. 67. See Gibbs v. Smith, 115 Mass. 592. [7] 5. False representations as to the scarcity of fresh fish constituted an unlawful act of such nature that at the least a contra......
-
The State ex inf. Hadley v. Standard Oil Co.
... ... prosecution. Cancemi v. People, 18 N.Y. 136; ... Harger v. Thomas, 44 Pa. St. 136; Ely v ... Thompson, 10 Ky. 74; Pardee v. Smith, 27 Mich ... 43; Com. v. Certain Intox. Liquors, 127 Mass. 452; ... Com. v. Certain Intox. Liquors, 80 Mass. 375; ... Rex v. Lawrence, 43 ... Guthrie, 35 Ohio St. 666; Swan v. Chorpenning, ... 20 Cal. 182; State ex rel. v. Standard Oil Co., 49 ... Ohio St. 137, 30 N.E. 279; Gibbs v. Smith, 115 Mass ... 592; Richardson v. Buhl, 77 Mich. 632, 43 N.W. 1102; ... Pacific Co. v. Adler, 90 Cal. 110, 27 P. 36; Beach ... on ... ...