Carlton v. Bailey
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit upon a promissory note, dated December 14, 1850, for §100, payable to Solomon Woods or order, on demand with interest, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note, dated December 14, 1850, for §100, payable to Solomon Woods or order, on demand with interest, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. Upon the general issue, the defendants’ evidence tended to show, that the note was given to Woods as part of the consideration of the sale of a stock of goods, in a store at Nashville, in this county, of the value of about §1800; of which spirituous liquors were a part, to the value of about §700; that Woods and Greeley, by whom the sale was made, had no license to sell spirituous liquors ; and that the note was not transferred…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
It is a familiar and well settled principle, that if a part of the consideration of a note is illegal, as founded in a transaction which is forbidden by the law, no action can be maintained upon such note by the payee. Clark v. Ricker, 14 N. H. Rep. 44, and cases there cited.
It has also been settled that the act of July 4,1838, which imposes a penalty upon any person who shall sell spirituous liquors without license, makes the contract of sale illegal. Lewis v. Welch, 14 N. H. Rep. 294. The reasons upon which that decision was founded, are equally conclusive of the illegality of the sale of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sheldon v. ClarkNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Lewis v. WelchSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843
- Clark v. RickerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843
- Franklin v. MarchSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833
- Emerson v. CrockerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1830