Reference

Full Case Name

Norfolk and Western Railway Company v. F. Dehart Distilling Company

Cited By

2 cases

Status

Published

Syllabus

1. Intoxicating Liquors — Carriers—Shipment Into NoALioemge Territory—Illegal Contract.—Under Acts 1908, pp. 275, 281, 282, it was unlawful for common carriers to transport large quantities of liquor into no-license territory, so that a contract of carriage of 133 gallons of apple brandy, to be transported by the defendant carrier into Giles county, which was then no-license territory, was an illegal contract. 2. Intoxicating Liquors — Carriers•—Shipment Into No-'Licen¡s& Territory—Illegal Contract—Case at Ba/r.-*—In the instant case, the plaintiff, a manufacturer and wholesale dealer in ardent spirits, on October 27, 1916, delivered to the defendant, a common carrier at a place where at-that time it. was lawful to manufacture and sell ardent spirits, 133 gallons of apple • brandy, to be transported by the defendant to á place in Virginia in no-license territory, and there to be delivered to the consignee. The brandy did not arrive until after November 1, 1916, when the State-wide prohibition law went into effect, and it was unlawful for the defendant to deliver the shipment to any one. In an action for damages by the plaintiff against the' defendant for breach of this contract of carriage, defendant interposed the defense .that if it be granted that its failure to deliver the shipment to tbe consignee, prior to the going into effect of the State-wide prohibition law, was dué to its negligent delay; nevertheless the transportation of -the shipment of ardent spirits into no-license territory was unlawful at the time the shipment was delivered to the defendant and ’ that the contract of carriage was therefore Unldwful at' the . time it was entered into, and that no damages could be-recovered by the plaintiff for - the breach, of such contract.. Held: That the defense was a good one. 3. Illegal Contracts—Defense Not Fmored.—The defense 'of illegality of a contract,'interposed by one of the-parties to it for the purpose of - escaping its obligation, is not one. favored in the law; the maxim, “Homo allegans suam turpitudinem audiendus est,” makes a strong appeal in a court of justice;, and there are many situations in which the courts will either not consider the particular contracts as necessarily illegal, or will regard thei parties as in pari delicto, and will not lend an ear to either of them. But courts will not aid a party to enforce an agreement made in furtherance of objects forbidden by statute or to recover damages for its breach. 4. Carriers—Illegal Contracts.—Where the transportation which is. the subject of the contract of carriage is forbidden by statute,, there is no other course left open for the court to pursue, except to deny aid to either party to such a contract to recover damages for its breach. 5. Appeal and Error—Judgment of Appellate Court—Dismissal.— Under section 6365, Code of 1919, providing that the appellate court shall reverse the judgment, in whole or in part, if erroneous, and enter such judgment, decree, or order as to the court shall seem right and proper and shall render final judgment upon the merits whenever, in the opinion of the court,, the facts before it are such as to enable the court to attain the ends of justice, where the Supreme Court of Appeals reverses a judgment in favor of a plaintiff against a carrier on the ground that the contract of carriage was illegal, it will order that the case be dismissed.