Taylor v. Chester (1869) — Illegality & In Pari Delicto

Quick Summary

The plaintiff left half of a $50 note with the defendant as security for payment for food and wine supplied for use in a brothel he kept. He later sued to recover the half note. The Queen’s Bench refused. Because the claim depended on an immoral/illegal arrangement, the court applied the rule of in pari delicto and left the parties where it found them.

Issues

• Can the plaintiff recover security money given as part of an immoral/illegal transaction?
• Is the illegality collateral or central to the claim?

Rules

• In pari delicto potior est conditio possidentis: When both parties are equally at fault in an illegal/immoral agreement, the court will not assist either; the possessor’s position is stronger.
• Recovery is barred where the claimant must rely on the illegal transaction to make the claim succeed.
• If illegality is only collateral, recovery may be possible. If it is at the core, recovery is denied.

Arguments

The court held for the defendant. The plaintiff could not recover the half note because his claim depended on showing the true, immoral character of the deposit. The illegality was part of the very transaction, not a side issue. Applying in pari delicto, the court refused assistance and left the loss where it fell.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a claim cannot succeed without proving an immoral/illegal agreement, courts will not help the claimant. In such cases, the principle of in pari delicto bars restitution; the party in possession keeps what they hold.

Why It Matters

• Shows how public policy blocks claims tied to illegality/immorality.
• Helps separate central illegality (barred) from collateral illegality (may allow recovery).
• Guides pleading strategy: avoid relying on illegal purpose to make the claim.

Key Takeaways

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “EQUAL FAULT? NO DEFAULT.”

1. Identify Illegality: Is the claim tied to an immoral/illegal deal?
2. Central or Collateral? If central → bar; if collateral → maybe recover.
3. Apply In Pari Delicto: Equally at fault → court won’t help.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Can a plaintiff recover security given when the transaction is rooted in an immoral/illegal purpose?

Rule

In pari delicto and public policy: courts refuse aid where a claim relies on illegality central to the contract.

Application

The deposit was security for supplies used in a brothel. To win, the plaintiff had to disclose and rely on that purpose. Illegality was central, not collateral.

Conclusion

Recovery barred; defendant keeps the half note.

Glossary

In Pari Delicto

“At equal fault.” Courts leave parties to an illegal bargain as they stand.

Collateral Illegality

Illegality that is incidental; the claim can be made without relying on it.

Public Policy

Legal principle used to deny enforcement of harmful or immoral arrangements.

FAQs

Related Cases