N. GOLDRING, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
AARON JOHNSON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this action for goods sold, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the defendant Johnson, holding that a contract whereby a liquor dealer agreed to sell goods to a retailer operating under the dealer's illegally-held license violated state law and was unenforceable.
The court held that Goldring cannot recover because the contract's foundation rests upon an illegal act—Johnson selling intoxicating liquors under Goldring's license in violation of statute. Courts will not aid parties seeking to enforce contracts based on illegal conduct.
“a license to sell intoxicating liquors is personal, and can be transferred only by permission of duly constituted authorities, and neither custom nor ignorance of the law can validate the transaction.”
Establishes that the contract violated statute by attempting to circumvent the personal nature of liquor licenses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGoldring, a wholesale liquor dealer, contracted with Johnson to lease Goldring's building, purchase liquors from Goldring, and operate a retail liquor…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
In an action for goods sold, there was judgment for the defendant.
It appears from the record that Goldring, a wholesale liquor dealer, was desirous to have Johnson conduct a retail liquor business in a store owned by Goldring in the city of Pensacola. He entered into a contract with John-' son whereby it was agreed that the said Johnson should ' lease the said building at a stipulated rental, buy all his liquors at a satisfactory price from Goldring, and conduct and own the business; but that the licenses, State arid Municipal, to conduct such business should be taken out in the name of Goldring, to be paid for by Johnson. This scheme is a clear violation of the statute, in that a license to-sell intoxicating liquors is personal, and can be transferred only by permission of duly constituted authorities, and neither custom nor ignorance of the law can validate the transaction.
In support of the plaintiff’s claim to recover, reliance is placed upon the doctrine of this court in Crescent Ins. Co. of New Orleans v. Bear, 23 Fla. 50, 1 South. Rep. 318, wherein cases are cited to support recovery by one party to a share* of the profits arising out of an illegal venture already consummated; one of the parties to the venture was not before the court, and it was readily conceded that none of his rights could be adjudicated. The cases cited from the Supreme Court of the United States have in effect been overruled by that court, so the doctrine is without weight.
More to the'point is the language of this court in Cook v. Fernandez, 11 Fla. 100: “The principle that no court shall aid men who found their cause of action upon illegal acts, is not only a well settled, but a most salutary principle.”
The gist of the contract, the basic foundation of the action, is that Johnson should commit the illegal act of selling intoxicating liquors in his own right under the license issued to Goldring. The courts can best preserve the law by refusing their aid to wilful violations of the law. The case of Koppiz-Melchers Brewing Co. v. Behm, 130 Mich. 649, 90 N. W. Rep. 676, is very close in point.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Westerman v. Shell's City, Inc., 265 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1972)…v. State Beverage Dept., 143 So. 2d 578 (Fla.App.3d 1962); further proceedings in Keating v. State, ex rel. Ausebel, 167 So. 2d 46 (Fla.App. 1st 1964), quashed in Keating v. State, ex rel. Ausebel, 173 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1965). . Goldring v. Johnson, 65 Fla. 381, 62 So. 212 (1913); Schaal v. Race, 135 So. 2d 252 (Fla.App.2d 1961).…
-
Kulla v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 426 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…o listen. It is a well-settled principle of law requiring little discussion that one who himself engages in a fraudulent scheme, that is, acts in pari delicto, may forfeit his right to any legal remedy against a co-perpetrator. Goldring v. Johnson, 65 Fla. 381, 62 So. 212 (1913); Horjales v. Loeb, 291 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Frye v. Taylor, 263 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). The rationale underlying this principle, in its most distilled form, is that the “law will not lend its support to a claim fo…
-
Harrison v. Kersey, 67 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1914)…so offending “shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than double the amount required for such license.” Unlike the licenses to dealers in intoxicating liquors, discussed in Goldring v. Johnson, 65 Fla. 381, 62 South. Rep. 212, which are issuable and transferable only by permission of the County Commissioners, if the applicant be found fit to transact the business, the license to engage in the business of selling lands for others is open to any one wil…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crescent Ins. Co. of New Orleans v. Bear, 23 Fla. 50 (Fla. 1887)
- Cook v. Fernandez, 11 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1865)