Andrews v. New Orleans Brewing Ass'n

74 Miss. 362
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 74 Miss. 362 (Andrews v. New Orleans Brewing Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Andrews v. New Orleans Brewing Ass'n, 74 Miss. 362 (Mich. 1896).

Opinion

Woods, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Without expressing any opinion as to the illegality of the business carried on in Vicksburg by the appellee, under its arrangement with the Vicksburg Liquor & Tobacco Company, it is clear that such illegality may be conceded, and yet the appellee’s right to recovery is not affected thereby. For, conceding the illegality of the business, the question still remains whether the appellant company can be allowed to receive, for the appellee’s use, money which arose out of an illegal transaction, then consummated and ended, and retain it as against the appellee, for and on whose account it was received.

It is unnecessary to discuss the question, for it was long ago carefully and elaborately examined and definitely settled in this state in Gilliam v. Brown, 43 Miss., 641. Said this court in that case: “The principle seems to be well established that after the illegal contract had been executed, one party in possession of all the gains and profits resulting from the illicit [365]*365traffic and transaction, will not be tolerated to interpose the objection that the business which produced the fund was in violation of law, and, therefore, the plaintiff, jointly interested in its gains and profits, cannot ground any claim to an account and share thereof.” In Howe v. Jolly, 68 Miss., 323, Gilliam v. Brown was cited and followed, and this question declared to be “ completely settled by that case. ’ ’

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rosenkrantz v. Barde
214 P. 893 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1923)
Johnson v. Davidson
202 P. 159 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)
McCall Co. v. Hughes
59 So. 794 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1912)
Wayman Investment Co. v. Wessinger
108 P. 1022 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
Woodson v. Hopkins
85 Miss. 171 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 Miss. 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-new-orleans-brewing-assn-miss-1896.