Lewer v. Cornelius

Citations

• 72 Wash. 124
• 129 P. 911
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1418

Syllabus

<p>Intoxicating Liquors — Contracts — Validity — Public Policy— Aiding in Evasion of Law. Under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6282, making it unlawful for a brewing company to pay, advance, or loan or become surety for the payment of a retail liquor license, a promissory note by the retailer, payable to a bank, and delivered to a brewing company, which solicited from the bank a loan thereon to pay the retailer’s license fee, is void as against public policy and unenforceable, where the bank had notice of the purpose of the loan and made the same on the security of the brewing company with a view of assisting in the evasion of the statute.</p> <p>Contracts — Varidity—Public Policy — Enforcement—Objections How Raised. The courts will refuse to enforce a contract entered into in violation of a statute and against public policy, without regard to the manner in which the illegality is disclosed, and will start an inquiry of its own regardless of the technical accuracy of the pleadings or the admissibility of evidence disclosing the illegality, to the end that neither party be given any aid in illegal proceedings.</p> <p>Statutes — Titles and Subjects — Intoxicating Liquors. The title to the act of 1909, Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6282, “to prohibit any manufacturer . . . from having any interest ... in any retail liquor license ... or to become surety on any liquor dealer’s bond . . .” is broad enough to include the provision of the act prohibiting such manufacturer from paying or advancing money or becoming surety for the payment of a retail liquor license.</p> <p>Constitutional Law — Due Process — Intoxicating Liquors — Regulations. Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6282, prohibiting any manufacturer from advancing money to pay or become surety for the payment of any retail liquor license, does not deprive the manufacturers of property without due process of law, regulation of the liquor traffic being within the power of the state.</p>