Opinion

Wulfing v. Armstrong Cork Co.

  • 250 Mo. 723
  • 157 S.W. 615
  • 1913 Mo. LEXIS 187
Court
Supreme Court of Missouri
Filed
May 31, 1913
Status
Published
Author
Woodson
On the bench
Brown, Woodson
Cited by
11 cases

The opinion

CONCURRING OPINION.

WOODSON, P. J.

I concur in all of the opinion written by our learned commissioner, in this case, except that part which treats of the alleged ratification of the lease by the appellant.

The ratification of a contract, which is absolutely prohibited by statute, will no more be recognized and enforced by the courts of this State, than they would recognize or enforce the contract itself. [United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose, 231 Mo. 509 , l. c. 531 to 541, and cases cited. ]

All contracts absolutely prohibited by statute rest upon precisely the same foundation that contracts involving fraud and immorality do. The courts will leave the parties thereto in the position in which they have thereby placed themselves. [See case previously cited.]

But independent of the ratification, the opinion, in my judgment reaches a proper conclusion, and for that reason, I also concur in the result thereof.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.