Martin v. . McMillan's Adm'r. .

Reade, J. The case before us sets forth that, “The defendant, Edwards, told the plaintiff that he wanted to buy the mules for the Confederate Government. The plaintiff replied that he could get more for them than the defendant offered, but as the defendant wanted them for the Confederate Government, he might have them at that price.” The principle involved in this case is so fully discussed in the late case of Phillips v. Hooker, Phil. Eq. 193, that it need not be labored here. It is there said “that if the illegal use to be made of the goods enters into the contract, and forms the motive or inducement in the mind of the vendor, then he cannot recover, provided the goods are actually used to carry out the contemplated design; but bare knowledge on the part of the vendor that the vendee intends to put the goods to an ille *488 gal use. will not vitiate the sale and deprive the vendor of all remedy for the purchase money.” Here the vendor said, “as you want them for the illegal purpose, you may have them at a reduced.price.” And the goods were in fact used for the illegal purpose. There was error in his Honor’s ruling. Judgment below reversed, and judgment here for the defendants. Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.