Same - Loan

According to the weight of authority, if a person lends money to another for the express purpose of enabling the borrower to use it to accomplish an illegal object, the transaction is illegal, and he cannot recover it.14 It is not easy to draw any legal distinction in respect to the legality of the transaction between a loan of money to be used for an illegal purpose and a sale of goods to be so used, and probably there is none. In a leading case it is said: "The plaintiff claims to recover a sum of money loaned by him while the defendant was engaged in playing at cards. The ruling at the trial was that if the plaintiff lent the money with an express understanding, intention, and purpose that it was to be used to gamble with, and it was so used, the debt so created cannot be recovered, but otherwise if the plaintiff had merely knowledge that the money was to be so used. Upon authority and principle the ruling was correct. * * * In order to find the lender in fault, he must himself have an intention that the money shall be illegally used. There must be a combination of intention between lender and borrower - a union of purposes. The lender must in some manner be a confederate or participator in the borrower's act - be himself implicated in it. He must loan his money for the express purpose of promoting the illegal design of the borrower; not intend merely to serve or accommodate the man." 15

11 Tracy v. Talmage, 14 N. T. 162, 67 Am. Dec. 132; Hill v. Spear, 50 N. H. 253, 9 Am. Rep. 205; Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N. W. 558, 9 L. R. A. 506, 20 Am. St. Rep. 580; Hanauer v. Doane, 12 Wall. 342, 20 L. Ed. 439; Bickel v. Sheets, 24 Ind. 1; Gaylord v. Soragen,

32Vt 110, 76 Am. Dec. 154 (but see Territt v. Bartlett, 21 VL 184; McConihe v. McMann, 27 VL 95); Walker v. Jeffries, 45 Miss. 160; Webber v. Donelly,

33 Mich. 469; Cheney v. Duke, 10 Gill & J. (Md.) 11; Michael v. Bacon, 49 Mo. 474, 8 Am. Rep. 138; Hedges v. Wallace, 2 Bush (Ky.) 442, 92 Am. Dec. 497; Armfield v. Tate, 29 N. C. 258; Rose v. Mitchell, 6 Colo. 102, 45 Am. Rep. 520; McKinney v. Andrews, 41 Tex. 363 (but see Roquemore v. Allo-way, 33 Tex. 461); Howell v. Stewart, 54 Mo. 400; Delavina v. Hill, 65 N. H. 94, 19 Atl. 1000; Gambs v. Sutherland's Estate, 101 Mich. 355, 59 N. W. 652; Goodall v. Brewing Co., 56 Ohio St. 257, 46 N. E. 983; Hollenberg Music Co. v. Berry, 85 Ark. 9, 106 S. W. 1172, 122 Am. St. Rep. 17; Washington Liquor Co. v. Shaw, 38 Wash. 398, 80 Pac. 536, 3 Ann. Cas. 153. He who performs labor and furnishes materials for a bar and the room containing it may recover, though he knew they were intended to be used for unlawful purposes. Bryson v. Haley, 68 N. H. 337, 38 Atl. 1006. See "Sales," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § J/8; Cent. Dig. §§ 101-107; "Contracts," Cent. Dig. § 464.

12 Tracy v. Talmage, 14 N. Y. 162, 67 Am. Dec. 132. See "Sales," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 48; Cent. Dig. §§ 101-101; "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 102; Cent. Dig. § 464.

13 Camors-McConnell Co. v. McConnell (C. C.) 140 Fed. 412; DIAMOND MATCH CO. v. ROEBER, 106 N. T. 473, 13 N. E. 419, 60 Am. Rep. 464, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 264. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 102; Cent. Dig. §§ 462-467.

14Cannan v. Bryce, 3 Barn. & Ald. 179; McKinnell v. Robinson, 3 Mees. & W. 435; TYLER v. CARLISLE, 79 Me. 210, 9 Atl. 356, 1 Am. St Rep. 801, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 297; White v. Buss, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 448; Ruckman v. Bryan, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 346; Peck v. Briggs, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 107; Cutler v. Welsh, 43 N. II. 497; Wright v. Crabbs, 78 Ind. 487; Mordecai v. Dawkins, 9 Rich. (S. C.) 262; Williamson v. Baley, 78 Mo. 636; Emerson v. Townsend, 73 Md. 224, 20 Atl. 984; Raymond v. Leavitt, 46 Mich. 447, 9 N. W. 525, 41 Am. Rep. 170; Critcher v. Holloway, 64 N. C. 526; Viser v. Bertrand, 14 Ark. 267; White v. Wilson's Adm'rs, 100 Ky. 367, 38 S. W. 495. 37 L. R. A. 197. It has been said, however, that money, though loaned for the purpose of being used for gambling purposes, may be recovered, if it was not in fact so used. TYLER v. CARLISLE, supra. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 102; Cent. Dig. §§ 462-464.

15 TYLER v. CARLISLE, 79 Me. 210, 9 Atl. 356, 1 Am. St Rep. 301. Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 297. And see Armstrong v. Bank, 133 U. S. 433, 10 Sup. Ct. 450, 33 L. Ed. 747; Plank v. Jackson, 128 Ind. 424, 26 N. E. 668, 27 N. E. 1117; Jackson v. Bank, 125 Ind. 347, 25 N. E. 430, 9 L. R. A. 657; Howell v. Stewart, 54 Mo. 400; Lyon v. Respass, 1 Litt (Ky.) 133, Lewis v. Alexander, 51 Tex. 578; Waugh v. Beck, 114 Pa. 422, 6 Atl 923, 60 Am. Rep. 354; Jones v. Bank, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 455; Hines v. Union Savings Bank & Trust Co., 120 Ga. 711, 48 S. E. 120. A loan of money, intended to pay lost bets, has been held to be recoverable. "The mischief had been completed," it was said in such a case. "The illegal act had been carried out before the money was lent" Pyke's Case, 8 Ch. Div. 756. And see Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat. 258, 6 L. Ed. 468; Armstrong v. Bank, 133 U. S. 433, 10 Sup. Ct. 450, 33 L. Ed. 747. Bee "Gaming," Dec. Dig (Key-No.)§ 18; Cent. Dig. §§ 36-38.

Clark Cont.(3d Ed.) - 27