Opinion
05-11-1903
SLATER et al. v. SCHWEGLER.
W. Holt Apgar and lames McTrippe, for the rule. Thomas P. Fay, opposed.
Suit by Sarah E. Slater and others against Louisa Schwegler for the cancellation of a lease and to enjoin an action at law on the same. Preliminary injunction refused.
W. Holt Apgar and lames McTrippe, for the rule.
Thomas P. Fay, opposed.
REED, V. C. The bill is filed to have a lease canceled, and an action at law upon it enjoined, upon the ground that the lease is void. The nullity of the lease is put upon the ground that the property left was leased for an illegal purpose, namely, for a gambling house. Upon the facts appearing in the affidavits, there is an adequate defense at law to the action which this bill is filed to enjoin. The fact that the lease is sealed does not matter. A seal never protected a contract from attack when the instrument was made to subserve an immoral or illegal purpose. The lease is not a gaming contract, but a contract to let a house for gaming purposes. Even in pure gaming contracts equity will not entertain a suit for cancellation when the defense at law is certain and adequate, particularly where the instrument sought to be canceled is nonnegotiable. It is true the power to cancel is not confined to gaming contracts. But it is confined to cases where the defense at law—for which defense this suit for cancellation is a substitute—is entirely perfect, certain, and adequate.
It is said that actions may be brought for successive installments of rent. If the complainant succeeds in one suit upon the ground set forth in these affidavits, equity will not hesitate to protect her from further suits.
A preliminary injunction is refused, and the rule discharged.