Maybin v. Coulon

Decision Date01 March 1804
Citation1 L.Ed. 841,4 Dall. 298,4 U.S. 298
PartiesMaybin, surviving partner, &c. v. Coulon. (a) Coulon v. Maybin, surviving partner, &c.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THESE actions having been referred, the referees reported that there was due, in the first, from the defendant to the plaintiff, as surviving partner of Joseph Anthony and Co. a sum of 30,708 16/100 dollars; and that in the second there was no cause of action. To this report, Coulon filed a number of exceptions, of which it is only necessary to state the substance of the single exception, which was the ground of the decision of the Court: to wit, 'That the balance reported to be due to Maybin, arose from a series of unlawful transactions, in violation of the acts of congress, respecting the registering of vessels, and the duties on tonnage and impost; and, consequently, no Court of justice could lend its aid to enforce the recovery.'

The facts were briefly these: Coulon, an alien, came to the United States in the year 1794, bringing with him a considerable quantity of merchandize, which he placed in the hands of Joseph Anthony and Co. He had, also, left a considerable property in the Isle of France; and he was not only desirous to have that property brought to America, but to enter into various commercial speculations, with these and other funds, in the European, as well as Indian, markets. He accordingly entered into engagements with Joseph Anthony and Co.; and, in consideration of his making them the depositaries of his funds, with an allowance of ample commissions for services, and of interest for advances, they undertook to purchase vessels and cargoes for him, in their they undertook to purchase vessels and cargoes for him, in their own names; and in like manner to import the return cargoes. Among the vessels purchased for Coulon (some carrying only a

(a) S.C. 4 Yates 24; where the case is more fully reported sea-letter) was the America, which was registered in New-York, as the property of Joseph Anthony and Co. American citizens; and a cargo afterwards brought in the America, from the Isle of France, though entirely owned by Coulon, was entered at the custom-house of Philadelphia, as owned by them. From the accounts and correspondence produced in Court, as well as before the referees, it clearly appeared, that the balance resulted from these illicit transactions; and that the sum reported to be due to Maybin, was about the amount of the commissions for services, and the interest for occasional advances; the nett price of the vessels and cargoes, having been actually paid from the funds of Coulon.

The counsel for Coulon insisted, that the referees had erred, in point of law, by giving a sanction to the violation of the acts of congress (c); and that their report could not, therefore, be sustained, or affirmed by the Court. In the course of the argument they cited, 1 Pow. on Contr. 183. 195. 201. 203. 1 Bous. & Pull. 340. 3 T.Rep. 454. 4 T. Rep. 466. 1 Bous. & Pull. 296. Cowp. 341. 5 T. Rep. 599. 1 Bous. & Pull. 556. 4 Burr. 2069. 3 T. Rep. 421. 6 T. Rep. 61. 405. 3 Vez. jun. 373.

The counsel for Maybin argued, That advances were made, and services performed, to a great amount, independent of the vessels and cargoes, and were not involved in any illicit imputation; that it did not appear that the sum reported arose out of an illicit consideration, or contract; that it was too late after a reference and report, which liquidated the accounts, to object to the legality of the consideration and contract; and that, even if...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Scola v. Scola
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1945
    ...supports what we have held herein, and we do not regard anything in that opinion as an authority to the contrary. See Maybin v. Coulon, 4 Dall. 298, 1 L.Ed. 841. This is not a case where profits are held by a virtual stakeholder subject to order of the court, as in Braga v. Braga, 314 Mass.......
  • Vette v. Geist
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1900
    ... ... St. 15; ... Rolfe v. Delmar, 7 Rob. 80; Wooten v. Miller, 7 ... S. & M. 380; Dent v. Ferguson, 132 U.S. 50; ... Hannay v. Eve, 7 U.S. 242; Maybin v ... Conlon, 4 U.S. 298; Leman v. Groskopf, 22 Wis ... 447; McKenzie v. Donnell, 52 S.W. 214. (2) The court ... erred in considering the ... ...
  • Scola v. Scola
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1945
    ... ... herein, and we do not regard anything in that opinion as an ... authority to the contrary. See Maybin v. Coulon, 4 ... Dall. 298 ...        This is not a case ... where profits are held by a virtual stakeholder subject to ... order of the ... ...
  • Ruemmeli v. Cravens
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • September 10, 1903
    ... ... property except through the illegal contract. Wooten v ... Miller, 7 Smedes & M. 380; Maybin v. Coulon, 4 Dall ... (Pa.) 298, 1 L.Ed. 841; Floyd v. Patterson, 72 ... Tex. 202, 10 S.W. 526, 13 Am. St. Rep. 787 ...          Having ... ...
  • 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