Mills v. . Mills
Cases that cite this one
29 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Chard v. Ryan-Parker Construction Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1918)
- Dunham v. Hastings Pavement Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1907)
- Elmore v. Snow (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1968)
- Flynn v. Bank of Mineral Wells (Tex. App. 1909)
- McCallum v. Corn Products Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1909)
- Dunham v. Hastings Pavement Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1900)
- Milbank v. Jones (Superior Court of New York 1889)
- Milbank v. Jones (The Superior Court of New York City 1889)
- Hannah v. Fife (Mich. 1873)
- St. John v. Crocker (New York Supreme Court 1935)
- Davis v. Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n (Tex. Comm'n App. 1933)
- Graves & Houtchens v. Diamond Hill Independent School Dist. (Tex. App. 1922)
- Wright v. Fissell (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1921)
- Adams v. East Boston Co. (Mass. 1920)
- Metz v. Woodward-Brown Realty Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1918)
- Hyland v. Oregon Hassam Paving Co. (Or. 1914)
- Drake v. Lauer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1904)
- Veazey v. Allen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1901)
- Myers v. Dean (New York Court of Common Pleas 1894)
- Helman v. Withers (Ind. Ct. App. 1892)
- Milbank v. . Jones (N.Y. 1891)
- Wilbur v. New York Electric Construction Co. (Superior Court of New York 1891)
- Wilbur v. New York Electric Construction Co. (The Superior Court of New York City 1891)
- Cary v. Western Union Telephone Co. (New York Supreme Court 1888)
- Cary v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (New York Supreme Court 1888)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The question of the effect of agreements of this character has been recently considered in this court. (Lyon v. Mitchell, 36 N. Y. R., 235.) See also the dissenting opinion of Judge Gboveb, at page 682. The agreement in question is founded upon an undertaking on the part of the plaintiff, reciting that a bill was pending in the senate, which granted unto the plaintiff a certain railroad franchise in the city of Brooklyn, and promising “to give all the aid in hip, *546 power, spend such reasonable time as may be necessary, and generally to use his utmost influence and exertions to procure the passage into a law of the bill heretofore introduced into the senate of the State of Hew York.” It was further agreed that the said bill should be so amended as to limit the grant therein to the parties to this agreement; or that it should be amended as, from time to time, should be agreed by the said parties; and, when passed, the right should be transferred to David S. The plaintiff further agreed that he would not “ co-operate or conspire” with any other person, or give any aid or countenance to the introduction into the legislature by any other person of a similar proposition.
It is not suggested that the plaintiff was a professional man, whose calling it was to address legislative committees. It is not suggested that he had any claim of right, which he proposed to advocate, and which right or debt he proposed to transfer to the defendant. He had simply asked of the legislature the privilege or favor to be granted to him of building and operating a railroad, upon certain streets of the city of Brooklyn. This privilege may be assumed to be of pecuniary value. To procure the passage of such a law for the benefit of the defendant, he undertook to use his utmost influence and exertions. This contract is void as against public policy. It is a contract leading to secret, improper, and corrupt tampering with legislative action. See Lyon v. Mitchell (supra), and cases cited. See, also, Fuller v. Dame (18 Pick. R., 479); Sedgwick v. Staunton (14 N. Y., 289); Frost v. Belmont (6 Allen R., 159); Powers v. Skinner (34 Vt. R., 281). It is not necessary to adjudge that the parties stipulated for corrupt action, or that they intended that secret and improper resorts should be had. It is enough that the contract tends directly to those results. It furnishes a temptation to the plaintiff, to resort to corrupt means or improper devices, to influence legislative action. It tends to subject the legislature to influences destructive of its character, and fatal to public confidence in its action. (Clippayn v. Hepbaugh, 5 W. & S., 315; Fuller v. Dame, supra)
*547 The ease was correctly decided, and the judgment should be affirmed.
All the judges concurred in the result. Mason, J., thought it the duty of the court to construe a contract as innocent unless it appears affirmatively that it was for a corrupt purpose.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.