TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dunbar v. Johnson

Thomas J. Dunbar v. Frederick Johnson & another

Dunbar v. Johnson, 108 Mass. 519 (1871)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 15, 1871
Judges
Gray
Citations
108 Mass. 519
Headnotes
In an action upon an account stated, the defendant may plead and prove that the whole claim was founded in an illegal transaction.
Summary
Contract to recover a balance due upon an account stated on June 1, 1868. The answer set up that the account consisted of items for intoxicating liquors sold here by the plaintiff :o the defendants in violation of law. At the trial in the superior court, before Pitman, J., without a jury, the judge, against the plaintiff’s objection, admitted evidence to show upon what transactions the account arose, and found “ that the plaintiff sold intoxicating liquors to the defendants in this Commonwealth, before June 1, 1868, in violation of the laws in force at the time of sale, and that the account stated, upon which this action was brought, was founded upon such sales, and was the balance due therefor.” The plaintiff contended “that the illegality which might attach to the original sales did not affect this action upon an account stated, and that the action stood upon a new consideration, to wit, the accounting together.” But the judge ruled otherwise, ordered judgment for the defendants, and reported the case to this court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gray

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Gray, J.

Although the accounting together is a sufficient consideration to support a count upon an account stated, the defendant is not precluded from pleading and proving that the whole claim was founded in an illegal transaction. Thomas v. Hawkes, 8 M. & W. 140. Cocking v. Ward, 1 C. B. 858, 870. Kennedy v. Brown, 13 C. B. (N. S.) 677. Rundlett v. Weeber, 3 Gray, 263 . In the present case, it is found as a fact that the account stated was founded upon sales of intoxicating liquors made in this Commonwealth in violation of law, and it does not appear that the account included any lawful items. It was therefore rightly ruled that the plaintiff could not recover.

Judgment for the defendants.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1876–1877: 11886–1887: 11896–1897: 11898–1899: 11906–1907: 11912–1913: 11940–1941: 118762026peak 1876 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McKay v. Myers47 N.E. 98 (Mass. 1897)
  2. Mayberry v. Cook54 P. 95 (Cal. 1898)
  3. Milliken v. Warwick28 N.E.2d 224 (Mass. 1940)
  4. Peeples v. Yates40 So. 996 (Miss. 1906)
  5. Goodwin v. Clark65 Me. 280 (1876)
  6. O'Bryan v. Fitzgerald48 Ark. 487 (1886)

Most recent

  1. Milliken v. Warwick28 N.E.2d 224 (Mass. 1940)
  2. Murphey v. Springs & Co.200 F. 372 (5th Cir. 1912)
  3. Peeples v. Yates40 So. 996 (Miss. 1906)
  4. Mayberry v. Cook54 P. 95 (Cal. 1898)
  5. McKay v. Myers47 N.E. 98 (Mass. 1897)
  6. O'Bryan v. Fitzgerald48 Ark. 487 (1886)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list