Langton and Others against Hughes and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1813 |
| Date | 21 June 1813 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 105 E.R. 222
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[593] langton and OxHi& agavitet hughes and another. Monday, June 21st, 1813. Where the plaintiff, a druggist, after the 42 G. 3, c. 38, but before the 51 G. 3, e. 87, sold and delivered drugs to the defendant, a brewer, knowing that they were to be used in the brewery : Held that he could not recover the price of them. Action for goods sold and delivered. At the trial before Lord Ellenborough C.J. at the London sittings after last Hilary term, it appeared that the plaintiffs were druggists in London, and the defendants brewers at Chester, that in the months of June 1804 and 1805 the traveller of the plaintiffs took orders from the defendants for a quantity of drugs, consisting of Spanish juice, isinglass, ginger, and other articles, which he knew were for the purpose of being used in the brewery. The goods were accordingly supplied. Upon this evidence it was objected for the defendant that as by the 42 G. 3, c. 38, s. 20, the brewer is prohibited from using any thing but malt and hops in the.brewing of beer, it was illegal in the plaintiffs to furnish the defendants with these articles, knowing the use to which they were to be applied; and that the 51 G. 3, c. 87, s. 17, which was passed since the sale, and which expressly prohibits druggists from selling to brewers articles of this description, did not import that, before that Act, they might sell them to brewers with a knowledge that they were to be used contrary to the former Act. Lord Ellenborough C.J. was of opinion that the plaintiffs in selling drugs to the defendants, knowing they were to be used contrary to the 42 G. 3, c. 38, were aiding them in the breach of that Act, and therefore not entitled to recover; and he directed the jury to find for the defendants, but reserved the point. Whereupon [594] a rule nisi was obtained in the last term for setting aside the verdict, and entering a verdict for the plaintiffs or for a new trial. D. F. Jones who now shewed cause, relied as before upon the 42 G. 3, c. 38, s. 20, and on the rule that a party who is aiding in carrying into effect an illegal contract, cannot derive out of it any meritorious cause of action. Here the contract was illegal, because it was founded on an intended breach of the law; and the plaintiffs were aiding in its execution, because they sold and delivered the goods with a knowledge of the illegal purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sharda Sobhy v The Chief Appeals Officer, Minster for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Ireland and The Attorney General
...position that a right cannot flow from an illegal contract or a contract “tainted” by illegality expressed by Lord Ellenborough C.J. in Langton v. Hughes (1813) 1 M. & S. 593 and the often quoted old dicta of Lord Tenterden in Wetherell v. Jones (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 221 that:- “Where a contrac......
-
Marles v Philip Trant & Sons Ltd (no 2)
...this was the result." The principle underlying these decision is really the same as that stated by Lord Ellenborough, Chief Justice, in Langton v. Hughes, reported in 1 Meeson & Welsby's Reports at page 596: "What is done in contravention ofan Act of Parliament cannot be made the subject-ma......
-
Anglo Petroleum v TFB (Mortgages)
...“Likewise with an unlawful purpose, active participation debars, but knowledge by itself does not” was erroneous. 70 Mr Martin relied on Langton v Hughes (1813) 1 M and S 593 and Pearce v Brooks as authority for the principle that knowledge by one contracting party that the other party had ......
-
Harbour Assurance Company (U.K.) Ltd v Kansa General International Insurance Company Ltd
... ... LTD. AND OTHERS ... 1993 Jan. 25, ... Ralph Gibson , Leggatt and ... Ltd. [ 1926 ] A.C. 497 , P.C ... Langton v. Hughes ( 1813 ) 1 M. & S. 593 Lee (Joe) Ltd. v ... , by the first, third, fourth and fifth defendants against his order of 31 July 1991 in an action brought by Harbour ... ...
-
REFORMING ILLEGALITY IN PRIVATE LAW
...at pp 19—20. 7 See, eg, Wetherell v Jones(1832) 110 ER 82; Coral Leisure Group Ltd v Barnett[1981] ICR 503. 8 See, eg, Langton v Hughes(1813) 105 ER 222; Mason v Clarke[1954] 1 QB 460 (this was a decision of the Court of Appeal; though subsequently overruled by the House of Lords in [1955] ......