Deans v. Robertson
Deans v. Robertson
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Qui hceret in litera, hceret in cortice.
But it is true that who seeks equity must do equity, and that a bill to cancel a contract on the ground of illegality will not be maintained unless it offers to pay what is justly due, and on this ground the demurrer was properly sustained. 1 Pomeroy’s Eq. Jur., § 391; 1 Story’s Eq. Jur., § 642.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- William Deans and Wife v. W. H. Robertson
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Promissory Note. And trust-deed. Void under § 589, Code of 1880. Rights of assignee. A promissory note and. deed of trust to secure it given for goods purchased from a merchant doing business without having paid the tax and obtained the privilege license prescribed by the statute, and which on that account are null and void in the hands of such merchant, under § 58,9, Code of 1880, are also void in the hands of the assignee of such merchant or any one deriving through him. 2. Same. And trust-deed. Void under § 589, Code of 1880. Rill to ■cancel. Tender. Chancery practice. The act in relation to public revenues, Code of 1880, requires every merchant to pay a tax and obtain a privilege license for conducting his business, and provides, in § 589, that “ all contracts made with any person who shall violate this act, in reference to the business carried on in disregard of this law, shall ' be null and void so far only as such persons may base any claim upon them, and no suit shall be maintainable in favor of such person on any such contract.” A bill in chancery to cancel a promissory note and deed of trust null and void under the provision above quoted cannot be maintained by the debtor • without a tender of the amount for which such note was given.