HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0787 and id is 1 raw text is: ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. COWPERTHWAITE
In Langton v. Hughes, 1 M. & S. 596. Lord Ellenborough said it must be taken
as a received rule of law, that what was done in contravention of the provisions of
an Act of Parliament, could nolt be the subject-matter of an action. In Gallini v.
Laboret, it was held that no action could be maintained where there was no license by
the Lord Chamberlain. Several other cases had decided to the same purport; such
as Mitchell v. Cockburne, Knowlas v. Honghton; and in Thomson v. Thomson, the same
principles were laid down by Sir Win. Grant, who dismissed a bill which had been
filed to enforce an illegal contract. In Ottley v. Browne, the bill was filed by a banker
for an account of shares held on trusts which were contrary to 29 Geo. 2, c. 16, which
prohibited bankers from trading; this was also dismissed.
Against these authorities, the cases of Dover v. Opey, 2 Eq. Ca. [183] Abr. 7,
Watts v. Brook, 3 Ves. 612, were cited. In Dover v. Opey, the partnership was for
legal purposes, but the Defendant committed an illegal act by smuggling, and in Watts
v. Brook, it was held that where a contract was illegal, the Court would not conclude
the result of it, in decreeing a general account, but this case was disapproved of by
Sir W. Grant, in Knowles v. Houghton, who said it was impossible to reconcile the dis-
tinction in that case to his mind.
It was said that some purposes were legal, such as purchasing the lease, dresses,
&c., and that so far as they were lawful, the contract ought to be performed; and
that the case of King v. Houghton, was an authority for that; but in that case the part
of the joint transaction was in execution of a legal object; and here there was no
evidence that a new lease had been granted ; besides which, the purchases were made
for purposes connected with the contract. In De Begnis v. Armistead, the Plaintiff
was not permitted to recover money clearly paid in respect of the illegal contract,
such as for dresses, &c., but was allowed to recover £30 borrowed to pay the expenses
of the hotel in London, and which were held not to be advanced for the necessary
purposes of carrying on the agreement.
It was said, that the Plaintiff, at least, ought to recover the money which he had
advanced, and that he had a lien on the theatre for the purpose; if the Plaintiff was
entitled, this was not the Court in which the demand could be enforced; and there
appeared to be no such case made by the bill which would give the Plaintiff the
benefit; besides that, the mere payment of money did not constitute a lien.
His Lordship considered that the case was one of great hardship, but it was a
thing which was common to cases of that nature. It was said that the Defendant
offered to return the money; perhaps he would do so now. His Lordship, however,
thought the decision of the Vice-Chancellor was supported both by principle and
authority ; he must, therefore, dismiss the appeal, with costs.
The counsel for the Plaintiff having now asked for the money which had been
offered and refused, before the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Knight said, the Plaintiff
having refused it before, could not have it then.
Cases cited for the Plaintiff. -Dover v. Opey, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 7 ; Watts v. Brook, 3 Ves.
612; Knowles v. Houghton, 11 Ves. 108 ; Rodwell v. Ridge, 1 Car. & Payne, 220.
Cases cited for the Defendant.-De Begnis v. Armistead, 10 Bing. 107; The King v.
Glossop, 4 Bar. & Ald. 616; The King v. Neville, 1 Bar. & Ald. 489 ; Gallini v. Laboret,
5 T. R. 244; Mitchell v. Cockburne, 2 H. Black, 379 ; Thomson v. Thomson, 7 Ves. 47
Ottley v. Browne, 1 Ball. & B. 360; King v. Hardy, 3 T. R. 286; Parsons v. Chapman,
5 Carr. & Payne, 33.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
[184] ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. COWPERTHWAITE. Fell. 7, 1837.
I also bequeath to the Poor Distressed People of Quorndon, in Leicestershire, the
Interest of £1000, to be paid half-yearly, every Year, but not later, is a good
Charitable Bequest.
Mr. Spence stated that in this case the bill had been filed by the Attorney-General
against the personal representatives of George Hyde, to have it declared whether a
bequest was a good charitable bequest.
Mr. Spence appeared for the relator.
308
DONNEULY 183.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0787&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)