DocketNumber: No. 7698
Citation Numbers: 123 F.2d 153
Judges: Groner, Miller, Vinson
Filed Date: 10/13/1941
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/23/2022
The District Court dismissed appellant’s bill of complaint seeking an accounting. The question is whether the court, exercising its equity heritage; properly applied the in pari delicto rule to the facts presented.
Plaintiff alleged that he was employed in a restaurant, and that defendant approached him with the proposition that they open their own restaurant. He further alleged that later they entered into a 50-50 partnership for the operation of a restaurant, including the sale of alcoholic beverages, and after two years had passed defendant forced him to leave.
Defendant answered that plaintiff was never a partner, and, further, since plaintiff was an alien he could have no interest in the business nor the license. In his testimony, plaintiff admitted that he was an alien and knew that he could not obtain a license. He revealed that the liquor license had been taken out in defendant’s name, with his consent, before the restaurant was opened. With so much of the case presented, the court dismissed the bill of complaint.
The District Alcoholic Beverage Control Act then and now in force provides that no individual or partnership should sell any alcoholic beverage without a license.
The equity rule that a court will not specifically enforce or conduct an accounting under an illegal contract where both parties are at fault is well established.
Affirmed.
D.C.Code Supp. V, Tit. 20, § 1909 (a).
D.C.Code Supp. V, Tit. 20, § 1914 (a) (2).
D.C.Code Supp. V, Tit. 20, § 1914 (a) (3).
D.C.Code Supp. V, Tit. 20, § 1933.
Romano v. Bono, 168 Misc. 897, 6 N.Y.S.2d 204; Flegenheimer v. Brogan, 284 N.Y. 268, 30 N.E.2d 591, 132 A.L.R. 613; Kennedy v. Lonabaugh, 19 Wyo. 352, 117 P. 1079, Ann.Cas.1913E, 133; Teoli v. Nardolillo, 23 R.I. 87, 49 A. 489; 4 A.L.R. 44, particularly 64 et seq., 80 et seq., and 104 et seq.; I Pomeroy, Eq
McBlair v. Gibbes, 17 How. 232, 58 U. S. 232, 15 L.Ed. 132; Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. 70, 69 U.S. 70, 17 L.Ed. 732; Planter’s Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall. 483, 83 U.S. 483, 21 L.Ed. 473; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U.S. 540, 22 S.Ct. 431, 46 L.Ed. 679; Columbus v. Sheehy, 43 App.D.C. 462; Vaszauskas v. Vaszauskas, 115 Conn. 418, 161 A. 856; Ely v. King-Richardson Co., 265 Ill. 148, 106 N.E. 619, L.R.A.1915B, 1052; 19 Am. Jur., Equity § 478.