Site icon swarb.co.uk

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:

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 25-Mar-16
Ref: 194099

Exit mobile version