Frazier v. Thompson

2 Watts & Serg. 235
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedSeptember 15, 1841
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 2 Watts & Serg. 235 (Frazier v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Frazier v. Thompson, 2 Watts & Serg. 235 (Pa. 1841).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Rogers, J.

We cannot distinguish this case from Yundt v. Roberts, (5 Serg. & Rawle 141). When the condition of a bond consists of several different parts, and some of them are lawful and' others not, it is good for such as are lawful, and void as to the rest. But if a contract is entire, and founded on two considerations, one of which is unlawful, that vitiates the whole. Cro. Eliz. 199; Crawford v. Morrell, (9 Johns. Rep. 196). Here, the purchase of the different articles was separate and distinct, not mutual and dependent, with an entirely different price and consideration. The different items were summed up, and the note taken for the whole amount; but that cannot alter the case. If the contract had been that in consideration of all the articles furnished by the plaintiff the defendants gave the note, it would be an entire contract, and the illegality of the consideration in part would avoid the whole contract. And the reason is, that in the supposed case we cannot separate the good from the bad. But where the contracts are separate and distinct, no difficulty exists, and consequently there is nothing to prevent a recovery of that which is good, allowing a credit for the item which is illegal. Nor can it affect the principle that the contracts are made at the same time, provided the considerations are not so blended as to form but one consideration, although it may be composed of different items.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

White v. Cook
57 L.R.A. 417 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1902)
Kansas City v. O'Connor
82 Mo. App. 655 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1900)
Cotten v. McKenzie
57 Miss. 418 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1879)
Pollak v. Gregory
9 Bosw. 116 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1861)
Filson's Trustees v. Himes
5 Pa. 452 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1846)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Watts & Serg. 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazier-v-thompson-pa-1841.