Commissioners of Catawba County v. Setzer

RodjiaN, J. In a case between individuals the law is too well settled to admit of dispute. It is said in Chitty on Contracts 636: “ If an illegal contract be executed or performed, and both parties are in pari delicto, no action lies to recover back money paid;” and in Howson v. Hancock, 8 T. Rep. 575, Ld. Kenyon, O. J., says: “ But there is no case to be found where, when money has been actually paid by one of the parties to the other, upon an illegal contract, both being par-ticipes criminis, an action has been maintained to recover it back again.” See also Pearson v. Lord, 6 Mass. 81, and Worcester v. Baton, 11 Mass. 368. It is attempted to exclude the present case from, the general rule, on the ground that the plaintiff is a municipal corporation, and is not bound by the illegal acts of its agents; and that at the time of the payment it was not known, that payment could not be enforced. It may be that if an agent of the plaintiff had exceeded his authority and paid the defendant, the corporation might repudiate the act, and recover the money. But that is not the case. The payment was made by the authority of the corporation. No authority has been cited to show that in such a case a municipal corporation stands on any different ground from an individual in a like case. We know of no reason why it should. The rule is not found on anything in respect to which a municipal corporation differs from an individual but on the maxim of common sense and convenience, “m pari delicto,potior est conditio possidentis.” There must be an end to litigation. When a matter is voluntarily settled by the acts of the parties in the absence of fraud or mistake, it must be deemed settled forever. Could a county recover of the individual soldiers of *429 Confederate army for the clothes and provisions, which, in many instances, they furnished them or their families ? Or could the State now recover from its officers the salaries which it paid them during the war ? We do not mean that those instances are not distinguishable from the present. They are stated merely as extremes to which the doctrine contended for by the plaintiff might be, not illogically, carried. Neither can the ordinance of 1866 and the Constitution of 1868, which forbid such payments, help the plaintiff after, notwithstanding them, he has made the payment. Before the statutes and by common law, it was a breach of duty in the sheriff to pay the money of its constituents, where there was no legal or moral obligation to pay it. The effect of these statutes has been considered elsewhere; they do not affect the present case. Neither can it help the plaintiff, that at the time of the payment, it was not known that the contract was illegal, and could not be enforced. The facts which made it illegal were all known. In such a case the plaintiff must be taken to have, known the law. Pee CueiaM. Judgment affirmed.