Wheeler v. Russell

17 Mass. 257
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1821
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

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.

Bluebook
Wheeler v. Russell, 17 Mass. 257 (Mass. 1821).

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

Accetta v. Zupa
54 A.D. 33 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Washburn Mill Co. v. Bartlett
54 N.W. 544 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1893)
Potts v. McPherson
21 Ill. App. 121 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1886)
McCafferty v. Heritage
10 Del. 220 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1877)
Shanklin v. Board of Commissioners
21 Ohio St. (N.S.) 575 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1871)
Martin v. Zellerbach
38 Cal. 300 (California Supreme Court, 1869)
Rhine v. Ellen
36 Cal. 362 (California Supreme Court, 1868)
Peck v. Vandenberg
30 Cal. 11 (California Supreme Court, 1866)
McGehee v. Rump
37 Ala. 651 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1861)
Pate v. Johnson
15 Ark. 275 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1854)
Morrison v. Underwood
20 N.H. 369 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1850)
Robeson v. French
53 Mass. 24 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1846)
Nash v. Spofford
51 Mass. 192 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1845)
Hale v. Henderson
23 Tenn. 199 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1843)
Briggs v. Call
46 Mass. 504 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1843)
Hill v. Smith
2 Bradf. 18 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1840)
Jones v. Ward
18 Tenn. 160 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1836)
United States v. Williams
28 F. Cas. 678 (D. Maine, 1830)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 Mass. 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheeler-v-russell-mass-1821.