Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

67 Ark. 480

Kirkland v. Benjamin

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 24, 1900

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1900-02-24

Contracts like this -one are prohibited by statute. Sand. & H. Dig., § 1488. A note given in consideration of the dismissal of a prosecution is void. Tied. Com. Pap. § 183; 1 Dan. Neg. Inst. § 196; 54 Mo. 340. It is sufficient if the offense be charged. 1 Dan. Neg. Inst. § 196; 51 Ark. 519. If the promise to dismiss the prosecution constituted any part of the consideration of the note, it was void. Teid. Com. Pap. §§ 179, 183.

Relies on Shattuck v. Watson · Rogers v. Blythe

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1900-02-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1941

6 state decisions

2019001910192019301940decided

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 →

Battle, J.

¶1“A promissory note made to procure the dismissal of a criminal prosecution, although given for the amount of a debt due to the payee, is contrary to public policy, and void.” Rogers v. Blythe, 51 Ark. 519.

¶2“The general rule is that where an illegal contract has been made, neither courts of law nor equity will interpose to grant any relief to the parties, but will leave them where it finds them, if they have been equally cognizant of the illegality.” Shattuck v. Watson, 53 Ark. 147.

¶3We think that the evidence adduced at the hearing of this cause clearly shows that the notes sued on were executed for the purpose of procuring the dismissal of a criminal prosecution.

¶4The decree of the circuit court is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded; with instructions to the court to dismiss the complaint.

Wood, J., absent.
/67/ark/480 · .json · Public domain