Majority
APPEAL from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia en banc (1) reversing the judgment by Graham J., at the trial, and dismissing the plaintiff's action against the defendant Moore, with costs. The action was against one Jenkins, as principal debtor and the respondent Moore, as surety, under a written agreement to guarantee payment of the price :-Sir of intoxicating liquors sold by wholesale to Jenkins who carried on business as a hotel-keeper and kept a bar where he sold liquors by retail at Truro, in the county of Colchester, Nova Scotia, without the license required by the Nova Scotia Liquor License Act of 1895, in force in the county of Colchester, at the time of the sale. The trial court entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the amount guaranteed, but on appeal by Moore, this decision was reversed by the full court which held that, as the sale had been illegally made without a license, there could. be no recovery. The appeal came on for hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada on the 25th day of February, 1901, but after some arguments on behalf of the appellant. it became apparent that constitutional questions were involved similar to those raised in the appeal then pending before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of the Attorney- General of Manitoba (oral.)-This appeal as originally taken involved the decision of an important-question of constitutional law but that has now been settled by authority of the court of last resort* and does not come before us upon this argument.
Judgment of the Court
The only question that remains for us to decide is as to the effect of the provisions of the statute upon the validity of the contract.
It is settled law that contracts entered into in the face of statutory prohibition are void and the prohibition of sales of liquor without license provided by the statute in question has, therefore, the effect of rendering the contract here of no effect.
It is also settled that the imposition of a penalty for the contravention of a statute avoids a contract against the statute.
In the present case, we have both the prohibition in express terms and a penalty provided for.
The appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.