Curtis v Perry; 10 Mar 1802

References: (1802) 6 Ves 739, [1802] EngR 125, (1802) 6 Ves Jun 739, (1802) 31 ER 1285
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Eldon
Ratio Ships had been purchased by a partnership, but were then held seperately in the name of one of them. Only later were they included within the partnership acounts, but the separate registrations were maintained, and unlawfully so so as to avoid them being traced. The other partner had been a member of parliament, and would have been pennalised if he had been party to transactions with the government. On his death, his estate claimed an interest in the ships.
Held: The plaintiff failed to recover. Equity will assist neither party to an illegal transaction.
Lord Eldon said:’The reason for waiving any right Chiswell had in consequence of the manner, in which Nantes made this purchase, the object of keeping the ships registered in the name of Nantes, was, that a profit might be made by the employment of them in contracts with Government; and Chiswell was a Member of Parliament; who, the law says , shall not be a contractor. The moment the purpose to defeat the policy of the law by fraudulently concealing, that this was his property, is admitted, it is very clear, he ought not to be heard in this Court to say, that is his property.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Bowmakers Ltd -v- Barnet Instruments Ltd CA ([1945] KB 65)
    An action was brought for the wrongful conversion of machine tools delivered under hire purchase agreements which contravened wartime statutory orders. The plaintiff established its legal title to the goods at issue without relying upon the illegal . .
  • Cited – Tinsley -v- Milligan HL (Independent 06-Jul-93, Times 28-Jun-93, [1994] 1 AC 340, Bailii, [1993] UKHL 3, [1993] 3 WLR 126, [1993] 3 All ER 65)
    Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .
  • Cited – Costello -v- Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary CA (Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 381, [2001] 1 WLR 1437, [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 216, [2001] 3 All ER 150)
    The police seized a car from Mr Costello, believing that it was stolen. The seizure was lawful at the time, by virtue of section 19 of PACE. The police never brought any criminal proceedings against Mr Costello, but they refused to return the car to . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 25-Mar-16
Ref: 194099