Tyler v. Carlisle

• Decision Date: 01 March 1887
• Citation: 79 Me. 210,9 A. 356
• Parties: TYLER v. CARLISLE.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

9 A. 356

79 Me. 210

TYLER

v. CARLISLE.¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 1, 1887.

On exceptions from supreme judicial court, Knox county. Assumpsit to recover money loaned. The verdict was for the defendant, and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.

C. E. Littlefield, for plaintiff.

J. E. Hanley, for defendant.

PETERS, C. J. The plaintiff claims to recover a sum of money loaned by him while the defendant was engaged in playing at cards. The ruling at the trial was that, if the plaintiff let the money with an express understanding, intention, and purpose that it was to be used to gamble with, and it was so used, the debt so created cannot be recovered; but otherwise if the plaintiff had merely knowledge that the money was to be so used. Upon authority and principle the ruling was correct. Any different doctrine would, in most instances, be impracticable and unjust. It does not follow that a lender has a guilty purpose merely because he knows or believes that the borrower has. There may be a visible line between the motives of the two. If it were not so, men would have great responsibilities for the motives and acts of others. A person may loan money to his friend,—to the man,—and not to his purpose. He may at the same time disapprove his purpose. He may not be willing to deny his friend, however much disapproving his acts. In order to find the lender in fault, he must himself have an intention that the money shall be illegally used. There must be a combination of intention between lender and borrower,—a union of purposes. The lender must in some manner be a confederate or participator in the borrower's act,—be himself implicated in it. He must loan his moneyfor the express purpose of promoting the illegal design of the borrower, not intend merely to serve or accommodate the man. In support of this view many cases might be adduced. A few prominent ones will suffice. Green v. Collins, 3 Cliff. 494; Gaylord v. Soragen, 32 Vt. 110; Hill v. Spear, 50 N. H. 253; Peck v. liriggs, 3 Denio, 107; McIntyre v. Parks, 3 Mete. 207; Banchor v. Mansel, 47 Me. 58. See Franklin Co. v. Lewiston Sav. Bank, 68 Me. 47.

Nor was the branch of the ruling wrong that plaintiff, even though a participator, could recover his money back if it had not been actually used for illegal purposes. In minor offenses, the locus penitential continues until the money has been actually converted to the illegal use. The law encourages a repudiation of the illegal contract, even by a guilty participator, as long as it remains an executory contract, or the illegal purpose has not been put in operation. The...