McConnell v. Kitchens

Citations

• 20 S.C. 430
• 1884 S.C. LEXIS 29

Syllabus

<p>1. Where a defendant in his answer asserts that there are stipulations in the-contract other than those stated in the complaint, he does not admit the plaintiff’s cause of action as stated in the complaint, and, therefore, is not entitled to open and reply.</p> <p>2. Under the acts of 1872 (15 Slat. 33) and 1879 (17 Stat. 72), the sale of commercial fertilizers is forbidden unless the regulations prescribed by those acts were complied with — those requirements not being solely for revenue, but to protect the public from imposition and fraud, and their violation being declared a misdemeanor and punishable by recurring penalties.</p> <p>3. The general rule is, that a contract to do an act which is prohibited by statute, or which is contrary to public policy, is void and cannot be-enforced in a court of justice, and such prohibition may be implied from the imposition of a penalty.</p> <p>4. Commercial fertilizers sold in this State must bear a tag stating the several particulars required by the statutes, one of the most important of which is “the constituent elements” of the fertilizer; and this is necessary whether the chemical ingredients specified in the statute are present or not; but if asserted to be present, then the percentage of such ingredients.</p> <p>5. Where a merchant sold prepared agricultural lime in this State without a tag stating the chemical composition of such fertilizer, and the date of analysis, and took a note for the purchase-money — held, in action on this note, that the action was forbidden by statute, illegal and void, and the complaint was dismissed.</p>