McConnon v. Holden

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
• Writing for the Court: RICE, C. J.
• Citation: 204 P. 656,35 Idaho 75
• Decision Date: 13 February 1922
• Parties: HENRY J. MCCONNON, Appellant, v. WALTER N. HOLDEN and MARY HOLDEN, His Wife, Respondents

204 P. 656

35 Idaho 75

HENRY J. MCCONNON, Appellant,
v.
WALTER N. HOLDEN and MARY HOLDEN, His Wife, Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 13, 1922

SALES-ILLEGALITY OF.

1. If a contract of sale is entire and not separable, and any of its elements or ingredients are tainted with illegality, the plaintiff relying on such contract cannot recover; but to have that result the illegality must enter into and become a component part of the contract, or the seller must actively participate in the illegal purpose.

[35 Idaho 76]

2. In an action based upon a contract of sale, a defense to the effect that the contract is illegal, and on account thereof void, does not present any matter of private right which calls for protection or enforcement by the court.

3. The principle underlying the denial of recovery by one who relies upon a contract void for illegality is that it is against the public policy of the state for the court to lend its aid to one who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, for Minidoka County. Hon. Wm. A. Babcock, Judge.

Action to foreclose mortgage. Judgment for defendants. Reversed.

Judgment reversed, with costs to appellant.

Cecil M. Adams, and Homer C. Mills, for Appellant.

This contract is one of sale and not agency, and statements of defendant as to his own status as an agent are inadmissible. (Watkins Medical Co. v. Holloway, 182 Mo.App. 140, 168 S.W. 290; McConnon & Co. v. McCormick (Tex. Civ.), 179 S.W. 275; McConnon & Co. v. Haskins (Mo. App.), 180 S.W. 21; Saginaw Medicine Co. v. Batey, 179 Mich. 651, 146 N.W. 329; Dr. Koch Vegetable Tea Co. v. Malone (Tex. Civ.), 163 S.W. 662; W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Van Duyn, 32 Idaho 767, 188 P. 945; W. T. Rawleigh Medical Co. v. Rose, 133 Ark. 505, 202 S.W. 849.)

The sending of printed matter to purchaser to assist in advertising goods, or price list, or requirement of reports or records of sale by company from salesman, or provision allowing salesmen to return goods to company, or designation of salesman's territory, or suggestions and advice to wagonmen by the company concerning the sale of goods, does not alter character of contract nor tend to establish the relation of agency between them. (Ross v. Northrup, King & Co., 156 Wis. 327, 144 N.W. 1124; Sucker State Drill Co. v. Wirtz, 17 N.D. 313, 115 N.W. 844, 18 L. R. A., N. S., 134; Rich v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 34 Wash. 14, 74 P. 1008; Arbuckle v. Kirkpatrick, 98 Tenn. 221, 60 Am. St. 854, 39 S.W. 3, 36 L. R. A. 285; Granite Roofing Co. v. Casler, 82 Mich. 466, 46 N.W. 728; W. T. Rawleigh Medical Co. v. Van Winkle, 67 Ind.App. 24, 118 N.E. 834.)

There is no provision in the statutes denying the right to recover the debt contracted between McConnon & Company and Holden. (21 R. C. L., sec. 72, p. 558; Vermont Loan & Trust Co. v. Hoffman, 5 Idaho 376, 95 Am. St. 186, 49 P. 314, 37 L. R. A. 509; Wood v. Krepps, 168 Cal. 382, 143 P. 691, L. R. A. 1915B, 851; McCall Co. v. Hughes, 102 Miss. 375, 59 So. 794, 42 L. R. A., N. S., 63; Mandlebaum v. Gregovich, 17 Nev. 87, 45 Am. Rep. 433, 28 P. 121; Hughes v. Snell, 28 Okla. 828, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 374, 115 P. 1105, 34 L. R. A., N. S., 1133; Banks v. McCosker, 82 Md. 518, 51 Am. St. 478, 34 A. 539; Robbins v. Taxing District of Shelby County, 120 U.S. 489, 7 S.Ct. 592, 30 L.Ed. 694.)

The giving of the note and mortgage by Holden and his wife in payment of the book account, even though such book account was founded on an illegal consideration, is a sufficient consideration for the note and mortgage, and the defendants are estopped from setting up a lack of consideration or its illegality. (Oakdale Mfg. Co. v. Garst, 18 R.I. 484, 49 Am. St. 784, 28 A. 973, 23 L. R. A. 639; McCall Co. v. Hughes, supra; Koons v. Vauconsant, 129 Mich. 260, 95 Am. St. 438, 88 N.W. 630; Smith v. Smith, 4 Idaho 1, 35 P. 697; Fidelity State Bank v. Miller, 29 Idaho 777, 162 P. 244; First National Bank v. Harkey, 63 Okla. 163, 163 P. 273.)

W. W. Mattinson, for Respondents.

Secs. 2353-2359, C. S., is a police measure, enacted to protect public from fraud, and to prohibit peddling except in compliance with those sections. Contracts or sales made in violation thereof are void; notes and securities given to secure payment of price of goods sold in violation of the statute likewise are void and unenforceable. (17 R. C. L. 560; 3 R. C. L. 963; Benjamin on Sales, 521; Vermont Loan etc. Co. v. Hoffman, 5 Idaho 376, 95 Am. St. 186, 49 P. 314, 37 L. R. A. 509; Levinson v. Boas, 150 Cal. 185, 11 Ann. Cas. 661, 88 P. 825, 12 L. R. A., N. S., 575; Wood v. Krepps, 168 Cal. 382, 143 P. 691, L. R. A. 1915B, 851; Mandlebaum v. Gregovich, 17 Nev. 87, 45 Am. Rep. 433, 28 P. 121; Banks v. McCosker, 82 Md. 518, 51 Am. St. 478, 34 A. 539; Smith v. Bach, 183 Cal. 259, 191 P. 14; Rash v. Farley, 91 Ky. 344, 34 Am. St. 233, 15 S.W. 862; 8 C. J. 244; 13 C. J. 510; Martin v. Steele, 7 Idaho 497, 63 P. 1040; Baker v. Lehman etc. Co., 186 Ala. 493, 65 So. 321; Mo Yaen v. State, 18 Ariz. 491, 163 P. 135, L. R. A. 1917D, 1014; Leonard v. Poole, 114 N.Y. 371, 11 Am. St. 667, 21 N.E. 707, 4 L. R. A. 728.)

Where it is intended by the parties that the subject matter of the sale is to be taken into the jurisdiction of the forum and there sold in violation of the laws of the latter state, and the seller aids in the furtherance of such illegal purpose, the courts of the latter state will not permit an action to be maintained thereon. (23 R. C. L. 1316, 1320; Gaylord v. Soragen, 32 Vt. 110, 76 Am. Dec. 154; Coffe & Clarkener v. Wilhite, 56 Okla. 394, 156 P. 169; Standard Furniture Co. v. Van Alstine, 22 Wash. 670, 79 Am. St. 960, 62 P. 145, 51 L. R. A. 889; Arnott v. Pittston & Elmira Coal Co., 68 N.Y. 558, 23 Am. Rep. 190; Graves v. Johnson, 179 Mass. 53, 88 Am. St. 355, 60 N.E. 383; Tracy v. Talmage, 14 N.Y. 162, 67 Am. Dec. 132; Corbin v. Houlehan, 100 Me. 246, 61 A. 131, 70 L. R. A. 568; Wasserboehr v. Boulier, 84 Me. 165, 30 Am. St. 344, 24 A. 808; Smith v. Godfrey, 28 N.H. 379, 61 Am. Dec. 617.)

Apart from the contract of sale, the evidence establishes the relation of principal and agent between McConnon & Co. and Holden in the resale of McConnon products in Idaho, and this finding of the court sitting as a jury will not be disturbed. (Clark v. J. R. Watkins Medical Co., 115 Ark. 166, 171 S.W. 136; 2 C. J. 438; Willcox & G. Sewing Mach. Co. v. Ewing, 141 U.S. 627, 12 S.Ct. 94, 35 L.Ed. 882; Sturm v. Boker, 150 U.S. 312, 14 S.Ct. 99, 37 L.Ed. 1093; McKinney v. Grant, 76 Kan. 779, 93 P. 180; Studebaker Corp. of America v. Hanson, 24 Wyo. 222, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 557, 157 P. 582, 160 P. 336; Moline Plow Co. v. Rodgers, 53 Kan. 743, 42 Am. St. 317, 37 P. 111; Carstens v. Nut House, 96 Wash. 50, 164 P. 770; Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co. v. Balliet, 38 Nev. 164, 145 P. 941; Cauthorn v. Burley State Bank, 26 Idaho 532, 144 P. 1108; Blackwell v. Kercheval, 29 Idaho 473, 160 P. 741.)

RICE, C. J. McCarthy, Dunn and Lee, JJ., concur. Budge, J., did not sit at the hearing and took no part in the opinion.

OPINION

[35 Idaho 79] RICE, C. J.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage given for the purchase price of certain goods sold to...