Hoyt v. Macon
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to District Court, Fremont County. This was an action of assumpsit, upon the following promissory note: Canon City, C. T., January 18, 1870. $900.00 Sixty days after date, for value received, we or either of its promise to pay to S. ET. Hoyt or bearer the sum of nine hundred dollars. U. S. Rev. Stamp, 50c. canceled. AUGUSTUS MACOM, EDWARD CROUCH.
Read the full summary
Error to District Court, Fremont County. This was an action of assumpsit, upon the following promissory note: Canon City, C. T., January 18, 1870. $900.00 Sixty days after date, for value received, we or either of its promise to pay to S. ET. Hoyt or bearer the sum of nine hundred dollars. U. S. Rev. Stamp, 50c. canceled. AUGUSTUS MACOM, EDWARD CROUCH. Non assumpsit was pleaded, and also a special plea that the said promissory note “was based upon an illegal and invalid consideration, in this, that before and at the time of the execution, making and delivery of said promissory note, the said…
1Opinion of the CourtBelford, J.
Whether or not a party to a written instrument may go back of it to show that the consideration on which it rests is illegal, forms a subject on which the decisions of courts are far from uniform. The maxim nemo allegans twrpitudinem suam audiendus, while regarded as inflexible between the parties, is nevertheless made to yield to the interests of public policy, and the duty of preventing the accomplishment of fraudulent and illegal designs. The test prescribed by some courts is, whether the plaintiff requires the aid of this illegal transaction to establish his case (Swan v. Scott, 11 S. &…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Armstrong v. TolerSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Johnston v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1862
- Nellis v. ClarkNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Stewart v. KearneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Granger v. UrdaNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
3Cited by6 opinions
- Brown v. KennedySupreme Court of Colorado · 1888
- Currier v. ClarkColorado Court of Appeals · 1903
- Roy v. Harney Peak Tin Mining, Milling & Manufacturing Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1906
- Currier v. ClarkColorado Court of Appeals · 1903
- Young v. ThomsonColorado Court of Appeals · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.