Wheeler v. Russell
This text of 17 Mass. 257 (Wheeler v. Russell) 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.
Opinion
The Chief Justice observed, that the cause had been so elaborately argued on both sides, and the points and authorities so thoroughly displayed, that it was quite unnecessary for the Court to go into a formal discussion of the case. They were all of opinion that the shingles, for the price of which the note in suit was given, having been sold in direct violation of the statute, the consideration of the promise was clearly illegal, and insufficient to support it. No principle of law, his honor added, is better settled than that no action will lie upon a contract made in violation of a statute, or of a principle of the common law. The authorities cited by the counsel for the defendant to this point, are irresistible. Indeed, the same thing has been frequently ruled by this Court, in cases which cannot be distinguished, in their principles, from that now before the Court ; particularly in the cases of The Springfield Bank vs. Merrick, and Russell vs. Be Grand.
The verdict must be set aside, and the plaintiff may be called.
Plaintiff nonsuit
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 Mass. 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheeler-v-russell-mass-1821.