Story Case

A. D. Fernald, a druggist, made a contract of sale of whiskey and playing cards to H. K. Clark. He had no license to sell the liquor and this was known to Clark. Both these men had often carried out the same kind of transaction, and Fernald made a special price of $5 for a quart of whiskey, and a dozen packs of cards. Ordinarily, he sold the cards for $3 and the whiskey for $3.

Finally Fernald and Clark disagreed, and Fernald refused to deliver the articles. Clark sued him for breach of promise. Fernald defended on the grounds that the whole contract was illegal. Is this a good defense?

Ruling Court Case. Randle Vs. Edwards, Volume 63 Arkansas Reports, Page 318, Volume 58 American State Reports, Page 108

Edwards was the postmaster at Gurdon, Arkansas. On the 1st day of December, 1892, he agreed to sell to Randle, for the sum of $200, all his post office fixtures; he agreed to resign and recommend Randle as his successor. He resigned at that time, and the $200 was paid to him by Randle. But afterwards Edwards failed, and refused to deliver to Randle the furniture, as agreed. Then Randle brought this action to recover his two hundred dollars.

Edwards contended that the contract was void, because it was made to create a vacancy in a public office, and recommend a successor. Randle, however, insisted that the contract was severable, in that Edwards promised two things: to resign and recommend him as successor, and to sell his furniture. Although the former is illegal, the latter is legal and should be enforced.

Mr. Chief Justice Bunn delivered the opinion of the court: "The contract, as explained by the pleadings and testimony, is an indivisible one; that is to say, the lawful and the unlawful parts cannot be separated, so as to enforce the one and annul the other. Looking at the transaction in the most favorable light, it is in contravention of public policy, simply because it is an effort to create a vacancy in a public office, and to fill that vacancy by and through methods that the law cannot tolerate. The contract is, therefore, null and void throughout".

Judgment was given for Edwards.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

If a contract consists of something which is legal and something which is illegal, and these things are so closely related that the legal cannot be separated from the illegal, the Court will treat the contract as if it were completely illegal, and refuse to have anything to do with the contract. In the Court Case of Randle vs. Edwards, the contract contemplated the doing of two things; the creation of a vacancy of a public office, which was illegal; and the sale of office furniture, which was legal. To bind the contract, $200 was paid. The Court was of opinion that it would be impossible to determine how much money was paid by way of purchase of the furniture, and how much was paid as a consideration for the vacancy of the public office. This being the case, the Court refused to deal with the contract. It considered the agreement as if it had been wholly illegal. This is true of the sale in the Story Case, and Clark cannot recover anything.