Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

11 Vt. 592

Woodruff v. Hinman

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided July 15, 1839

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1839-07-15

This was an action upon a promissory note. Plea, general issue, and trial by jury. The execution of the note was admitted. The defendant gave evidence tending to show that the note in suit was given under the following circumstances:— One Thomas Lamphier, some time during the preceding winter, gave in payment to the plaintiff two $5 counterfeit bills, knowing them to be such at the time.

Relies on Crawford v. Morrell

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Indivisible”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1839-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 1908

10 state decisions

4018391840185018601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1In this case the court delivered no formal opinion, the judge who was expected to assign the reasons of the court having been unexpectedly called away before the close of the term. The judgment of the county court was affirmed, and the following opinion was drawn up by

Redfield, J.

¶2In the present case, the principal consideration of the note sued being the costs and expenses of a criminal prosecution and the discontinuing the same, which the plaintiff had no right to do, the counsel for the plaintiff do not even argue that the consideration is valid to the full extent of the contract. But as there was included in the note $10 which the plaintiff was entitled to receive of the defendant, he claims that the contract shall be held good to that amount.

¶3There can be little doubt, I apprehend, at the present day, that a consideration of the character set forth in the bill of exceptions is against law and void. Hinesburg v. Sumner et al. 9 Vt. R. 23. Armstrongs. Toler, 11 Wheat. R. 258, and cases cited in note. Dixon s. Olmstead, 9 Vt. R. 310, and the case of Swaseys. Mead Sf Chase, there referred to.

¶4If a part of the consideration be invalid simply, and not unlawful, the contract is binding. Yelv. 56. Pikard s. *594Cottle, 1 Com. on Contracts, 26. 8 Mass. R. 51, by Sedgwick J.

¶5But it is fully settled, that when any portion of the entire consideration of a contract is against law, that the whole contract is illegal'and void, and cannot be enforced. Cases cited above. If part of the consideration of a bill of exchange be the sale of spirituous liquors contrary to law, though the other part be money lent, the entire contract is void, and no part of it can be enforced. Scott v. Gilman, 3 Taunt. R. 226. Frotherston v. Hutchinson, Cro. Eliz. 199. Crawford v. Mordi, 8 Johns. 253. The court have not been able to perceive any ground upon which the plaintiff can be permitted to recover upon this note, even to the amount of what was justly due him. This is but a reasonable punishment for including with his just due that which he had no right to take.

/11/vt/592 · .json · Public domain