Gibbs v. Smith

115 Mass. 592, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 265
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 26, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 115 Mass. 592 (Gibbs v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gibbs v. Smith, 115 Mass. 592, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 265 (Mass. 1874).

Opinion

Devens, J.

An agreement between two or more persons that one shall bid for the benefit of all upon property about to be sold at public auction, which they desire to purchase together, either because they propose to hold it together, or afterwards to divide it into such parts. as they wish individually to hold, neither desiring the whole, or for any similar honest or reasonable purpose, is legal in its character and will be enforced; but such agreement, if made for the purpose of preventing competition and reducing the price of the property to be sold below its fair value, is against public policy and in fraud of the just rights of the party offering it, and therefore illegal. Phippen v. Stickney, 3 Met. 384, 387. 1 Story Eq. Jur. § 293. Story Sales, § 484.

The contract in the present case is manifestly of the latter class. The labor of the. inmates of the house of correction was to be sold at auction. The plaintiffs contracted with the defendant not to bid for it if the defendant would pay them a certain sum if he obtained it. The only consideration for the defendant’s promise was that the plaintiffs should abstain from bidding. Competition would thus be destroyed so far as these parties were concerned, and the labor might thus be obtained at a rate lower than its fair market value. The contract thus made being against public policy, no action can be maintained upon it by the parties thereto. Fuller v. Dame, 18 Pick. 472. Rice v. Wood, 113 Mass.

Nor is it any answer to show that no injury has been done to the party selling. That which renders the contract illegal is not [594]*594the injury the parties have actually occasioned, but the purpose which they must have contemplated when it was made ; its validity is tested not by its results, but by its objects as shown by its terms. Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Weathers v. Jarvis
200 N.E. 886 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Harding Glass Co. v. Twin City Pipe Line Co.
39 F.2d 408 (Eighth Circuit, 1930)
Hellier v. Achorn
151 N.E. 305 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
Carp v. Kaplan
146 N.E. 779 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Amarillo Oil Co. v. Ranch Creek Oil & Gas Co.
271 S.W. 145 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Commonwealth v. Dyer
243 Mass. 472 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Anderson v. Blair
80 So. 31 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Kuhn v. Buhl
96 A. 977 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1916)
Palmbaum v. Magulsky
104 N.E. 746 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
United States v. Whiting
212 F. 466 (D. Massachusetts, 1914)
White v. McMath
127 Tenn. 713 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1913)
State ex inf. Hadley v. Standard Oil Co.
116 S.W. 902 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909)
Daily v. Hollis
66 S.W. 586 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1901)
Conway v. Garden City Paving & Post Co.
60 N.E. 82 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1901)
McClelland v. Citizens Bank
82 N.W. 319 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1900)
Quigley v. Breckenridge
54 N.E. 580 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1899)
State ex rel. Snyder v. Portland Natural Gas & Oil Co.
53 L.R.A. 413 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1899)
United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.
85 F. 271 (Sixth Circuit, 1898)
Hoffman v. McMullen
83 F. 372 (Ninth Circuit, 1897)
De Baun v. Brand
37 A. 726 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 Mass. 592, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbs-v-smith-mass-1874.