Kirkland v. Benjamin

Decision Date24 February 1900
Citation55 S.W. 840,67 Ark. 480
PartiesKIRKLAND v. BENJAMIN
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from LaFayette Circuit Court, CHAS. W. SMITH, Judge.

Decree reversed and cause remanded.

J. W. Warren, for appellants.

Contracts like this one are prohibited by statute. Sand. & H. Dig., § 1488. A note given in consideration of the dismissal of a prosecution is void. Tied. Com. Pap. § 183; 1 Dan. Neg. Inst. § 196; 54 Mo. 340. It is sufficient if the offense be charged. I Dan. Neg. Inst. § 196; 51 Ark. 519. If the promise to dismiss the prosecution constituted any part of the consideration of the note, it was void. Tied. Com. Pap. §§ 179, 183. A contract to use every legal and proper endeavor to have a prosecution dismissed is against public policy and void. Tied. Com. pap. § 183; 14 Bush, 505; 78 Ind. 152; 6 Bradw. 612.

OPINION

BATTLE, J.

"A promissory note made to procure the dismissal of a criminal prosecution, although given for the amount of a debt due to the payee, it is contrary to public policy, and void." Rogers v. Blythe, 51 Ark. 519, 11 S.W. 822.

"The general rule is that where an illegal contract has been made, neither courts of law nor equity will interpose to grant any relief to the parties, but will leave them where it finds them, if they have been equally cognizant of the illegality." Shattuck v. Watson, 53 Ark. 147, 13 S.W. 516.

We think that the evidence adduced at the hearing of this cause clearly shows that the notes sued on were executed for the purpose of procuring the dismissal of a criminal prosecution.

The decree of the circuit court is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded, with instructions to the court to dismiss the complaint.

WOOD, J., absent.

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Eager v. Jonesboro, Lake City & Eastern Express Company
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 5, 1912
    ...Ark. 378, 383; 32 Ark. 619, 631; 9 Cyc. 479; 25 Am. Rep. 671; 5 Ark. 648; 13 Ark. 12; 25 Ark. 209; 29 Ark. 386; 40 Ark. 251; 66 Ark. 535; 67 Ark. 480; 81 Ark. 41, 48; Ark. 106; 143 Mo. 238, 40 L. R. A. 151. KIRBY J. Mr. Justice WOOD concurs in the judgment. OPINION KIRBY J., (after stating ......
  • Peay v. Pulaski County
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 22, 1912
    ...that illegal contracts can not be enforced, and certainly they can not be enforced by the State or county. 66 Ark. 348; Id. 533; Id. 190; 67 Ark. 480; 77 Ark. 63 Ark. 318; 40 Ark. 488; 51 Ark. 519; 46 Ark. 420; 52 Ark. 178; 26 Ark. 160; 29 Ark. 386; 81 Ark. 41-48. As to the surety, these il......
  • Goodrum v. Merchants' & Planters' Bank
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 8, 1912
    ...void, although it may represent a just debt and security for its payment. Rogers v. Blythe, 51 Ark. 519, 11 S. W. 822; Kirkland v. Benjamin, 67 Ark. 480; 55 S. W. 840; Beal & Doyle Dry Goods Co. v. Barton, 80 Ark. 326, 97 S. W. 58; Johnson v. Graham Bros., 135 S. W. But it is equally well s......
  • Goodrum v. Merchants & Planters Bank
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 8, 1912
    ... ... just debt and security for its payment. Rogers v ... Blythe , 51 Ark. 519, 11 S.W. 822; Kirkland ... v. Benjamin , 67 Ark. 480, 55 S.W. 840; Beal & Doyle Dry Goods Co. v. Barton , 80 Ark. 326, 97 ... S.W. 58; Johnson v. Graham Bros. , ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT