Ralston v. Boady

20 Ga. 449
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 15, 1856
DocketNo. 82
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 20 Ga. 449 (Ralston v. Boady) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ralston v. Boady, 20 Ga. 449 (Ga. 1856).

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] It is penal by the laws of this State to keep a brothel. And if the landlord, knowing that his house is to be used for prostitution, lets it for that purpose, he becomes particeps criminis, and the Courts will not assist him in recovering his ■ rents. The contract being contra bonos mores, will not support an action. (Girardy vs. Richardson, 1 Esp. Rep. 13; Jennings vs. Throgmorton, 21 E. C. L. Rep. 430; Commonwealth vs. Harrington, 3 Pick. Rep. 26.)

Had the Court charged the Jury, that if they believed from, the evidence that the plaintiff let the house to the defendant,, a woman of ill fame, and he knowing her to be such, with. [451]*451the intent that it should be used for the purposes of prostitution, that he could not recover, he would have given the law correctly ; and we are not prepared to say but that the proof would have authorized the charge. There must be an agreement, express or implied, that the tenement should be msed for an unlawful purpose. And bare proof of a knowledge that it might and probably would be so used, will not, jperhaps, suffice. Some of the authorities, I find upon examination, go to the full extent of holding that bare knowledge is sufficient, and that the criminal intent will be inferred from "the knowledge.

Our ardent young brother, of Counsel for the plaintiff in •error, seems to be alarmed lest the doctrine contended for on the other side, if sustained by this Court, would turn out •bawds naked and houseless to starve in the streets; that no one dare make or wash clothes, build houses or furnish food •or fuel for them. As women, they are entitled to eat and drink, dress and be sheltered as others, but no one, at the risk of loss to themselves, must furnish any of these comforts or supplies for the purpose of exciting, encouraging or aiding these harlots to commit a crime. Eor if they do, and the Jury so find, they .will and ought to lose their money. Eor the maxim, ex turpi causa non oritur actio, is as old as the Jaw.

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

Related

Gold Bond Stamp Co. v. Bradfute Corp.
303 F. Supp. 532 (S.D. New York, 1969)
Carter v. Butler
31 S.E.2d 210 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Musco v. Torello
128 A. 645 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1925)
Lew U. Fon v. Chambers
228 P. 865 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
Harris v. Barfield Music House
89 S.E. 592 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
McAndrew v. Taylor
83 S.E. 967 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Abbott Furniture Co. v. Mobley
81 S.E. 196 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1914)
Ashford v. Mace
146 S.W. 474 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1912)
Kelly v. Williams
162 Ill. App. 571 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1911)
Heart v. East Tennessee Brewing Co.
121 Tenn. 69 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1908)
Robertson v. Porter
57 S.E. 993 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Grover v. Zook
87 P. 638 (Washington Supreme Court, 1906)
Kessler v. Pearson
55 S.E. 963 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Sawyer v. Thomas
88 S.W. 151 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Widgeon v. Southern Express Co.
45 S.E. 679 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Watkins v. Nugen
45 S.E. 262 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Standard Furniture Co. v. Van Alstine
51 L.R.A. 889 (Washington Supreme Court, 1900)
Dougherty v. Seymour
16 Colo. 289 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1891)
Almy v. Greene
13 R.I. 350 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Ga. 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ralston-v-boady-ga-1856.