Mitchell, Plaintiff in error, v. Smith

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 1, 1803
4 U.S. 232

Syllabus

*Mitchell, Plaintiff in error, v. Smith. Illegal contract A bond given in consideration of the purchase of land in Luzerne county, under the Connecticut title, is void. Error from the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne county, where an action of debt had been brought by Smith, for the use of Cash, against Mitchell, upon a single bill, or scaled note, dated the 11th of March 1796, for $483.33, payable in three years, with interest. The defendant pleaded payment, with leave to give the special matter in evidence: and thereupon, issue was joined. On the evidence, it appeared, that the note was given for 1500 acres of land, lying in the township of Smithfield, in the county of Luzerne, out of the seventeen townships, which Smith conveyed to Mitchell, at the time of the sale ; that the land had been granted to Smith by the committee of the Susquehanna company ; that Mitchell had been in the actual and peaceable possession of the land from the time of the sale ; and that he had a full knowledge of the law of April 1795, against intrusions under the Connecticut title, as well as of the general dispute relative to lands in Luzerne county. On the trial, in April term 1802, the defendant below insisted upon three points : 1st. That the consideration of the contract was illegal; and therefore, the bill or note was void. 2d. That the transaction was against the policy of the law. 3d. That the consideration had failed. Rush, President, in his charge to the jury, delivered an opinion against

Full Opinion (597 characters)
After great consideration, the judges delivered their opinions at large, seriatim, pronouncing the contract, on which the bill or note was given, to be unlawful, immoral and against the public policy of the law. They, therefore, decided, that no court of justice in Pennsylvania could lend its aid to effectuate such a contract; and, consequently, reversed the judgment of the court of common pleas.
Judgment reversed.
The same principle has been decided in Maybin v. Coulon, and in Duncanson v. McLure; both cases of contravening the act of congress, for registering vessels of the United States.

Source: Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School). This page is informational and is not legal advice.