Armstrong v. Shell

Mississippi Supreme Court

Armstrong v. Shell

26 So. 2d 344, 200 Miss. 7, 1946 Miss. LEXIS 261

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedMay 27, 1946

DocketNo. 36147.

StatusPublished

This text of 26 So. 2d 344 (Armstrong v. Shell) 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

Armstrong v. Shell, 26 So. 2d 344, 200 Miss. 7, 1946 Miss. LEXIS 261 (Mich. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

*9 Roberds, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant Armstrong, by a replevin proceeding, seized four mules, one wagon and two sets of harness in the possession of appellee Shell. Armstrong owned the property. Shell based his right to possession upon an oral contract he claims was previously made with Armstrong. It is admitted that this contract, if made, was begun, negotiated and entirely concluded on Sunday. That rendered the contract invalid and unenforceable. Section 2368, Code 1942; Miller v. Lynch, 38 Miss. 344; Kountz v. Price, 40 Miss. 341; Block v. McMurry, 56 Miss. 217, 31 Am. Rep. 357; Grapico Bottling Co. v. Emis, 140 Miss. 502, 106 So. 97, 44 A. L. R. 124; Stamps v. Frost, 174 Miss. 325, 164 So. 584; Thompson v. Weems, 5 Cir., 111 F. *10 (2d) 566; Smith et al. v. Mills, 199 Miss. 367, 24 So. (2d) 864.

But appellee says that Armstrong did not properly invoke the illegality of the contract and that he is in pari delicto and cannot take advantage of it. One may invoke-such invalidity either hy plea or objection to the evidence of the contract when offered. Stamps v. Frost, supra. Armstrong objected to the evidence and the objection was overruled. Armstrong is not in pari delicto because he is-•not attempting to enforce the contract. He says no such contract was made. His right is that of an owner. Shell,, not Armstrong, is grounding his right on the contract and trying to enforce it.

There are other grounds in the. record entitling’ Armstrong to a judgment but the above is sufficient.

Reversed and judgment here for appellant.

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

*9 Roberds, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant Armstrong, by a replevin proceeding, seized four mules, one wagon and two sets of harness in the possession of appellee Shell. Armstrong owned the property. Shell based his right to possession upon an oral contract he claims was previously made with Armstrong. It is admitted that this contract, if made, was begun, negotiated and entirely concluded on Sunday. That rendered the contract invalid and unenforceable. Section 2368, Code 1942; Miller v. Lynch, 38 Miss. 344; Kountz v. Price, 40 Miss. 341; Block v. McMurry, 56 Miss. 217, 31 Am. Rep. 357; Grapico Bottling Co. v. Emis, 140 Miss. 502, 106 So. 97, 44 A. L. R. 124; Stamps v. Frost, 174 Miss. 325, 164 So. 584; Thompson v. Weems, 5 Cir., 111 F. *10 (2d) 566; Smith et al. v. Mills, 199 Miss. 367, 24 So. (2d) 864.

But appellee says that Armstrong did not properly invoke the illegality of the contract and that he is in pari delicto and cannot take advantage of it. One may invoke-such invalidity either hy plea or objection to the evidence of the contract when offered. Stamps v. Frost, supra. Armstrong objected to the evidence and the objection was overruled. Armstrong is not in pari delicto because he is-•not attempting to enforce the contract. He says no such contract was made. His right is that of an owner. Shell,, not Armstrong, is grounding his right on the contract and trying to enforce it.

There are other grounds in the. record entitling’ Armstrong to a judgment but the above is sufficient.

Reversed and judgment here for appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 So. 2d 344, 200 Miss. 7, 1946 Miss. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-shell-miss-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack