Paine v. France
| Decision Date | 02 November 1866 |
| Parties | JOHN PAINE v. RICHARD FRANCE and Francis Morris. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
A Court of Equity in Maryland will not entertain a suit based upon a contract or transactions involving a violation of the laws of her sister States within their limits.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City:
This was a motion filed in a cause heretofore decided in this court, (see Paine v. France, 25 Md. 163,) praying the court "to reopen the decree heretofore passed therein and to re-hear the cause."
The motion was heard by BOWIE, C.J., BARTOL and WEISEL, JJ.
Reverdy Johnson and Richard T. Merrick, for, and J. Mason Campbell and Milton Whitney, against the motion.
The court have considered the motion filed in this case by the appellant, "to reopen the decree heretofore passed therein and to re-hear the cause," and have carefully examined the opinion heretofore pronounced, together with the record and notes of argument, and have, upon consultation with the other members of the court who did not sit at the hearing or participate in the former decision, come to the conclusion that the motion ought not to be granted.
In the judgment of the court there was no error in their ruling upon the questions decided.
The suggestion that the court ought not to have passed a final decree, but that under the Code, Art. 5, sec. 28, the cause ought to have been remanded without affirming or reversing so that the complainant might proceed under an amended bill would be entitled to great weight if it appeared to this court that the purposes of justice would thus be advanced, or that he would be entitled to relief under an amended bill.
The record contained an agreement setting forth that by the laws of all the other States, the sale of lottery tickets within their limits was forbidden. And in the opinion of this court this admission presents an insuperable obstacle to the complainant's recovery under any state of pleading.
A Court of Equity in Maryland will not entertain a suit based upon a contract or transactions involving a violation of the laws of our sister States within their limits.
The complainant in this case therefore would not be entitled to relief in respect to the sales of lottery tickets out of the limits of Maryland; his case would not be aided by an amendment of the bill so as to make it conform to the evidence offered.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Hooper
...in force, was an application made like the one now being considered. The nearest approach to the pending motion will be found in Paine v. France, 26 Md. 46, and that application refused. We do not perceive how the circumstances now relied on, even if proved, would change the conclusion here......
-
Gittings v. City of Baltimore
... ... amended bill averring this fact, and sustained by proper ... proof, the appellant would be entitled to relief. Paine ... v. France, 26 Md. 46; Johnson and Wife v ... Robertson, 31 Md. 491 ... We ... shall, therefore, as authorized by section ... ...