Moore v. Cassily

9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 305
CourtHamilton Circuit Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1898
StatusPublished

This text of 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 305 (Moore v. Cassily) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Moore v. Cassily, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 305 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1898).

Opinion

Swing, J.

The action in the court of common pleas was to enforce an illegal contract. It was an action on the contract itself, and not an action for an accounting in equity, as was Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall, 79, cited by plaintiff in error; nor does the case come under the principle decided in Horton v. Blinn, 39 O. S., 145, which was to recover money belonging to one in the hands of another. What right in an action on a quantum meruit Moore might have had it is not necessary for us to intimate. It is sufficient to say here that this action is to enforce the contract, which is admitted to be an illegal one, being against public policy.

The judgment below is affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-cassily-ohcircthamilton-1898.