Martin v. Amos
| Decision Date | 31 December 1851 |
| Citation | 35 N.C. 201,13 Ired. 201 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHN MARTIN ET AL. v. SARAH AMOS. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
A bond, with a condition that the plaintiffs should “break the will” of a deceased person, of whom the obligors were next of kin, or, “if they failed to break the will, should pay all the costs of the suit that shall be brought,” is void, on the ground of maintenance, and as being against public justice.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Stokes County, at the Fall Term, 1851, his Honor Judge ELLIS presiding.
The case is stated in the opinion of this Court,
Gilmer and Miller, for the plaintiffs .
Morehead, for the defendant .
The defendant, with several others, the widow and next of kin of Robert Tucker, deceased, executed to the plaintiffs their joint and several bond, to pay to them the sum of two hundred dollars, upon condition that they, the plaintiffs, broke the will of said deceased; and in the bond it was stipulated, that the plaintiffs, if they failed to break the will, “ should pay all the costs on the suit that will be brought.” The suit was brought, and, upon the trial the will was not broken, but established as to the real estate. After the determination of the suit, this action was brought on the bond, to recover the sum of fifty dollars, a balance due upon it. Among other pleas, was the following:--“that the bond was contrary to the policy of the law, and void.” His Honor, the presiding Judge, being of opinion with the defendant upon this special plea, the plaintiffs submitted to a nonsuit, and appealed to this Court.
We had thought, that, at this day, not a doubt could rest upon the correctness of the opinion expressed by the Judge below. The object of all laws is to repress vice and to promote the general welfare of the State; and no one can be assisted by the law in enforcing demands, founded on a breach or violation of its principles. Hence sprung the maxim at common law, “ ex turpi contractu non oritur actio.” It is the public good, which allows a contract to be impeached, for the illegality of the consideration. Nor does a seal, which in itself imports a consideration, protect the contract from being investigated in a Court of Common Law. A defendant, therefore, though he is not at liberty to show that a bond, executed by him, is without consideration, may, nevertheless, prove that the consideration, upon which it was given, is illegal, as being immoral or contrary to public policy. And,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Locklear v. Oxendine
...See Merrell v. Stuart, 220 N.C. 326, 17 S.E.2d 458, where the authorities are discussed and the principles applied. See also Martin v. Amos, 1851, 35 N.C. 201; Barnes v. Strong, 54 N.C. 100; Munday v. Whissenhant, 90 N.C. 458. Compare Smith v. Hartsell, 150 N.C. 71, 63 S.E. 172, 22 L.R.A.,N......
-
Merrell v. Stuart
...N.C. 458. Compare Smith v. Hartsell, 150 N.C. 71, 63 S.E. 172, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 203. A review of these cases is deemed pertinent. In Martin v. Amos, supra, the court held that a bond executed defendants for payment of $200 to plaintiffs conditioned that plaintiffs "break the will" of a decea......
-
Smith v. Hartsell
...of it, offering, as they do, enticement to perjury, and so tending to pervert the course of justice, are likewise forbidden. Martin et al. v. Amos, 35 N.C. 201; Goodrich v. Tenney, 144 Ill. 422, 33 N.E. 44, 19 R. A. 371, 36 Am. St. Rep. 459; Quirk v. Miller, 14 Mont. 467, 36 P. 1077, 25 L. ......