McMullen v. Hoffman
Citations
- 174 U.S. 639
- 19 S. Ct. 839
- 43 L. Ed. 1117
- 1899 U.S. LEXIS 1525
Syllabus
<p>The city of Portland, in Oregon, proposing to receive bids for the construction of what was called the Bull Run pipe line, Hoffman of Portland and McMullen of San Francisco entered into a contract in writing as follows : “ This agreement, made and entered into by and between Lee Hollinan, of Portland, Oregon, doing business under the name of Hoffman & Bates, party of the first part, and John McMullen, of San Francisco, California, party of the second part, witnesseth: That, whereas, said Hoffman and Bates have with the assistance of said McMullen at a recent bidding on the work of manufacturing and laying steel pipe from Mount Tabor to the head works of the Bull Run water system for Portland, submitted the lowest bid for said work, and expect to enter into a contract with the water committee of the city of Portland for doing such work, the contract having been awarded to said Hoffman and Bates on said bid : It is now hereby agreed that said Hoffman and said McMullen shall and will share in said contract equally, each to furnish and pay one half of the expenses of executing the same, and each to receive one half of the profits or bear and pay one half of the losses which shall result therefrom. And it is further hereby agreed that if either of the parties hereto shall get a contract for doing or to do any other part of the work let or to be let by said committee for bringing Bull Run water to Portland, the profits and losses thereof shall in the same manner be shared and borne by said parties equally, share and share alike.” Both put in bids for the work which forms the subject of dispute in this case. Hoffman’s bid was for $465,722. McMullen’s was $514,664. There were several other bids, but Hoffman’s was the lowest of all. The contract was awarded to him. He did the work and received the pay. This action was brought by McMullen to recover his portion of the profit, according to the contract. Held, that this contract was illegal, not only as tending to lessen com
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “no court will lend its assistance in any way towards carrying out the terms of an illegal contract”
- midsuit change in the citizenship of a party does not destroy diversity jurisdiction
- “[When] the cause of action grows directly out of the illegal contract . . . if the court distributes the profits, it enforces the contract.”
- “The authorities from the earliest time to the present unanimously hold that no court will lend its assistance in any way towards carrying out the terms of an illegal contract.”
- “In the case before us the cause of action grows directly out of the illegal contract, and, if the court distributes the profits, it enforces the contract, which is illegal.”
- “[N]o court will lend its assistance in any way towards carrying out the terms of an illegal contract ... nor will [courts] enforce any alleged rights directly springing from such a contract.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Peckham, After Stating the Facts
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
183 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc.Supreme Court· 1987-12-01· cited 2,748×
- Olmstead v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1928-06-04· cited 2,291×
- United States Ex Rel. Marcus v. HessSupreme Court· 1943-01-18· cited 1,062×
- Epic Systems Corp. v. LewisSupreme Court· 2018-05-21· cited 946×
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court· 1902-03-10· cited 575×
- Kaiser Steel Corp. v. MullinsSupreme Court· 1982-01-13· cited 394×
- Muschany v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1945-02-05· cited 359×
- Republic National Bank of Miami v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1992-12-14· cited 342×
- Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. BernerSupreme Court· 1985-06-11· cited 322×
- Kelly v. KosugaSupreme Court· 1959-04-06· cited 318×
- Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co.Supreme Court· 1947-04-07· cited 267×
- Atlantic Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. LewisSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2012-05-16· cited 154×
- Leff v. GunterCalifornia Supreme Court· 1983-02-28· cited 149×
- Bluefields S. S. Co. v. United Fruit Co.Third Circuit· 1917-06-26· cited 80×
- Diamond Glue Co. v. United States Glue Co.Supreme Court· 1903-01-05· cited 79×
- Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman v. CohenCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1983-08-18· cited 63×
- Noble v. Mead-Morrison Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1921-01-05· cited 62×
- Layton School of Art & Design v. Wisconsin Employment Relations CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court· 1978-02-07· cited 58×
- Rutkin v. ReinfeldSecond Circuit· 1956-01-25· cited 58×
- State v. La FeraSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1961-05-22· cited 57×
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Other cases named McMullen v. Hoffman
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.