Feret v Hill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 1854 |
| Date | 29 May 1854 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 139 E.R. 400
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 2 C. L. R. 136; 23 L. J. C. P. 185; 18 Jur. 1014; 2 W. R. 493. Distinguished, Taylor v. Chester, 1869, L. R. 4 Q. B. 314. Adopted, Fisher v. Tully, 1878, 3 App. Cas. 639. Discussed, Gordon v. Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, (1910) 2 K. B. 1089.
feret v. hill. May 29, 1854. [S. C. 2 C. L. E. 1366; 23 L. J. C. P. 185; 18 Jur. 1014; 2 W. R. 493. Distinguished, Taylor v. Chester, 1869, L. R. 4 Q. B. 314. Adopted, Fisher v. Tully, 1878, 3 App. Cas. 639. Discussed, Gordon v. Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, [1910] 2 K. B. 1089.] A. procured B. to grant him a lease of premises, by means of a false representation that he intended to carry on a certain lawful trade therein. Having obtained possession, A. converted the premises into a common brothel, whereupon B. forcibly expelled him :-Held, that A. might maintain ejectment,-the fraudulent misrepresentation, and the subsequent illegal use of the premises, not being sufficient (at law) to avoid the lease. This was an action of ejectment brought to recover the possession of rooms on the second floor of a house No. 2, Jermyn Street, of which the plaintiff had been dispossessed under the circumstances hereinafter disclosed. The cause was tried before Crowder, J., at the second sitting for Middlesex in Easter Term last. The facts were as follows :-In the month of February, 1853, the plain tiff applied to the defendant to let him certain apartments in the house in question, which belonged to the defendant, representing that he wanted them for the purpose of carrying on therein the business of a perfumer, and referring for his character and circumstances to a French gentleman named Pilon. In answer to inquiries made of him, M. Pilon stated that he had known Feret for about four years, that he believed him to be a respectable man, and that he carried on the perfumery business. The 15C.B.208. FERET V. HILL 401 defendant thereupon consented to accept the plaintiff as tenant of the rooms in question ; and an agreement was drawn up and signed by both parties. This agreement was dated the 1st of March, 1853, and it was thereby stipulated that the plaintiff should take [208] and the defendant let the rooms to the plaintiff at the yearly rent of 301., payable quarterly, the tenancy to be determinable by a three months' notice in writing. The plaintiff was accordingly let into possession : but, instead of carrying on the business of a perfumer, he converted the premises into a common brothel; whereupon the defendant gave the plaintiff notice to quit forthwith, and, upon his refusal to do so, forcibly expelled him. On the part of the defendant, it was submitted, that, inasmuch as the facts shewed that the plaintiff had hired the premises for the purpose of using them for an immoral and illegal purpose, the agreement was altogether void; and, further, that the defendant had been induced by the plaintiff's false representation to enter into the contract, and therefore was justified in rescinding it. Evidence was then offered on the part of the defendant,-with a view to shew that the plaintiff was a disreputable character,-that he had been charged twice before a magistrate, once with having committed an indecent assault upon a policeman, and once with having been found in a common gaming-house, upon which latter occasion he was fined 40s. This evidence was objected to on the part of the plaintiff, and the learned judge thought it inadmissible ; but, the defendant's counsel strenuously urging it, his lordship received it. Two questions were left to the jury,-first, whether the plaintiff, at the time he hired the apartments, intended to use them, or to permit them to be used, for an immoral or illegal purpose,-secondly, whether he had induced the defendant to let them to him, by fraud and misrepresentation. The 'jury found both those questions in the affirmative; and accordingly the learned judge (though he thought the facts proved afforded no defence to the action) [209] directed a verdict to be entered for the defendant, reserving leave to the plaintiff to move to enter the verdict for him, if the court should be of opinion that the agreement was valid, notwithstanding the facts found by the jury. Massey Dawson in due course obtained a rule nisi accordingly, and also for a new trial on the ground of the improper reception of the evidence collaterally affecting the plaintiff's character. Montagu Chambers and Raymond, on a former day in this term, shewed cause. As to the admissibility of the evidence as to the plaintiff's character,-the plaintiff must have known his own antecedents. [Crowder, J. The evidence was clearly inadmissible.] The evidence was offered for the purpose of shewing that the representations made by the plaintiff as to his character, and as to the business he meant to carry on upon the premises, were false. He is responsible for the statements made by Pilon, to whom he referred the defendant. [Maule, "J. You would say that the plaintiff, knowing his own infamy, was guilty of fraud in referring to a man who did not: Cwnfoot v. Fowke, 6 M. & W. 358.] The main point is, whether the conduct of the plaintiff did not render the agreement absolutely void. [Williams, J. The estate passed by the agreement. I do not see how it got back.] In order to entitle him to maintain this action, the plaintiff must shew that the legal right to the possession of the premises in question was withdrawn from the defendant; and that he can only do by shewing a legal agreement transferring it to himself. The evidence shewed that the agreement was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, and for a purpose which rendered it a perfect nullity. [Maule, J. The agreement, if void at all, was void at the election of [210] the defendant, provided he intimated his election with proper promptness. Suppose he had accepted rent from the plaintiff after he had become aware of the sort of use the plaintiff was making of the rooms, no doubt he would be precluded from his right of declaring the contract void.] Where an agreement is contrary to law or to public policy, and both parties concur in the illegal intention, it is absolutely void, and cannot be enforced. In Ritchie v. Smith, ante, vol. vi., p. 462, it was held that an agreement entered into for the purpose of enabling one of the parties to it to contravene a statute passed for the protection of public morals,-as, to enable an unlicensed person to sell exciseable liquors, contrary to the 9 G. 4, c. 61,-is illegal and incapable of being enforced in a court of law. Wilde, C. J., there says: "The licence granted by the magistrates has no reference whatever to revenue purposes; it is required solely for the protection 402 FERET V. HILL 15 C. B. 211. and preservation of the public morals, and the prevention of crimes and offences which are subversive of good order and the public safety; and the magistrates are careful, before granting such licence, to ascertain that the convenience of the neighbourhood calls for it, and that the party seeking it is of good character, and possesses the necessary qualifications for a licensed victualler. The plea expressly states that the contract was entered into for the purpose of enabling Newman to evade that law : and the reward the plaintiff stipulates to receive for the occupation of the premises by Newman, is compounded of a compensation for the use of the premises, and a compensation for facilitating him in so illegally carrying on the business. It is said, that, though the agreement was entered into for the purpose of enabling Newman to do this, it did not of necessity follow that he would be guilty of any infraction of the law. But I think it is impossible to look at this agreement without seeing that the parties contemplated [211] the doing of an illegal thing, in the infraction of a law enacted, not simply for revenue purposes, but for the safety and protection of the public morals. This decision will not conflict with any of the authorities. Smith v. Mawhood, 14 M. & W. 452, upon which so much reliance was placed, is no doubt very good law (a). But it is wholly inapplicable to the present case; for, this plea discloses matter clearly shewing that the plaintiff can have no locus standi in a court of law, to enforce an agreement entered into for the purpose of enabling a party to infringe a law made for the protection of public morals. I cannot conceive a party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quinn v IBRC (in special liquidation)
...of an illegal transaction will be enforced by the courts (Bowmakers Ltd. v. Barnet Instruments Ltd. [1945] K.B. 65, Ferret v. Hill (1854) 15 C.B. 207, Taylor v. ChesterL.R. 4 Q.B. 309, Alexander v. Rayson [1936] 1 K.B. 169), Lord Browne-Wilkinson summarised the principles that emerged from ......
-
Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council and Others
...property in goods or an interest under a lease ( Singh v. Ali [1960] A.C. 167; Belvoir Finance Co. Ltd. v. Stapleton [1971] 1 Q.B. 210; Feret v. Hill [1854] 15 C.B. 207). The law has thus eschewed a rigid, doctrinaire principle that all transactions tainted by lack of vires or illegality ......
- Aratra Potato Company Ltd v Taylor Joynson Garrett (A Firm)
-
Tinsley v Milligan
...to Bowmakers who could therefore found their claim on the property right so acquired. 55The position at law is further illustrated by Ferret v. Hill (1854) 15 C.B. 207 where A, with intent to use premises as a brothel, took a lease from B. B, having discovered that the premises were being u......