Summary

Henry Baldwin Bartle v. Nutt — Opinion of the Court

To enforce a contract which began with the corruption of a public officer, and progressed in the practice of known and wilful deception in its execution, can never be consummated or sanctioned by any court.
The law leaves the parties to such a contract as it found them. If either has sustained a loss by the bad faith of a particeps criminis, it is but a just infliction for premeditated and deeply practised fraud; which, when detected, deprives him of anticipated profits, or subjects him to unexpected losses.
Source: Wikisource

Henry Baldwin Bartle v. Nutt — Opinion of the Court

From the evidence taken in the case, it clearly appears that Marsteller acted as the agent of the United States in making the contract. That the materials furnished, and the labour performed, were under the direction of Bartle. That the money was principally received from the government by Marsteller, paid over by him to Coleman, who dispersed it on the orders of Bartle. There can be no doubt that Bartle and Marsteller were partners in the profits of the contract; but the capacity in which Coleman acted does not seem to be so certain. There is very strong evidence of his being a partner
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature