Davis-Delcambre Motors, Inc. v. Simon
1963 La. App. LEXIS 1814, 154 So.2d 775 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract, such as a promissory note, is void for having an illegal consideration if its primary motive is to suppress a criminal prosecution, as such an agreement is contrary to good morals and public policy.
Facts:
- In early June 1957, Wilmer Mitchel purchased a Chevrolet from Davis-Delcambre Motors, Inc. with two checks totaling $300.
- The checks were drawn on a bank where Mitchel had no account, and the bank consequently refused payment.
- An agent for Davis-Delcambre Motors contacted Mitchel and threatened to have him arrested for issuing worthless checks.
- Subsequently, Martin Simon, Mitchel's employer, issued a promissory note to Davis-Delcambre Motors for $300, the exact amount of the worthless checks.
Procedural Posture:
- Davis-Delcambre Motors, Inc. (plaintiff) sued Martin Simon (defendant) in a Louisiana lower court to enforce a $300 promissory note.
- Simon raised the special defense that the note was based on an illegal consideration.
- The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Davis-Delcambre Motors, Inc.
- Simon (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a promissory note given in exchange for a creditor's promise to forbear from initiating criminal prosecution against a debtor have an illegal consideration, rendering the note void and unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Frugé, Judge.
Yes, a promissory note is void for illegal consideration when it is given in exchange for a promise to suppress a criminal prosecution. The evidence shows the only realistic reason Martin Simon gave the note was because Davis-Delcambre Motors threatened to have Wilmer Mitchel jailed for issuing bad checks. The court reasoned that under the Louisiana Civil Code, a contract is void if its 'cause' or motive is unlawful, meaning it is forbidden by law, contrary to moral conduct (contra bonos mores), or against public order. An agreement to suppress the prosecution of a crime is fundamentally contrary to good morals and public policy, which renders the promissory note unenforceable.
Dissenting - Hood, Judge
No, the promissory note should be enforceable. The dissent argues that there was a valid consideration for the note, namely the payment of Mitchel's legitimate debt, which is legally permissible. It contends there was no explicit evidence of a promise by the plaintiff not to prosecute, and Simon himself testified he was unaware of any threat of jail time. Furthermore, the dissent argues that even if an invalid promise existed, the presence of a separate, valid consideration (the underlying debt) should be sufficient to enforce the note. It also raises a procedural objection that the defense of illegal consideration was not properly pleaded and should not have been considered.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the public policy doctrine that courts will not enforce agreements that interfere with the administration of criminal justice. It clarifies that the true 'cause' or motive behind a contract is determinative of its validity. Even if a valid underlying civil debt exists, a contract to pay that debt will be rendered void if its primary purpose is to 'buy' a promise to forbear from criminal prosecution. This decision serves as a strong deterrent against using the threat of criminal charges as leverage in civil debt collection, emphasizing that such agreements are considered contrary to good morals and will not be upheld by the courts.
