Oscanyan v. Arms Company
103 U.S. 261 (1880)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Oscanyan v. Arms Company, 103 U.S. 261 (1880)

Oscanyan v. Arms Company

103 U.S. 261

Syllabus

1. Where it is shown by the opening statement of counsel for the plaintiff that the contract on which the suit is brought is void as being either in violation of law or against public policy, the court may direct the jury to find

a verdict for the defendant.

2. A court is, in the due administration of justice, bound to refuse its aid to enforce such a contract although its invalidity be not specially pleaded.

3. A consul-general of a foreign government, residing in this country, entered into a contract whereby, in consideration of a stipulated percentage, he agreed to use his influence in favor of a manufacturing company here with an agent of that government sent to examine and report in regard to the purchase of arms for it. By exerting his influence, sales of arms were made by the company to that government, and he brought suit to recover the percentage. Held that in a court of the United States there can be no recovery on the contract.

Page 103 U. S. 262

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.