
    Kunkle’s Appeals.
    1. A court will not grant equitable relief to one who alleges Ms own turpitude as the ground for such relief.
    2. A. gave B. a judgment note for $40, upon wMeh judgment was after-wards entered'by a third party to whom, the payee had transferred it. A. then filed a petition setting forth that B. came to his house and showed him some money, which “looked to be good money,” and offered to bring him $200 of it, within a few days, for $50 in cash; that A. had no casia, and B. accepted his judgment note for $40, payable in one year, in lieu of the $50 cash, but never delivered the $200; that A. afterwards discovered that the whole transaction was a fraud, and the note consequently without consideration. The petition therefore prayed that the judgment be opened and A. let in to a defence.
    
      Held, that the court below committed no error in refusing to open the judgment.
    October 16th, 1884.
    Before Mercur, C. J., TrtjNKEY, Sterrett, GreeN and. Clark, JJ. Gordok and Paxsok, JJ., absent.
    Appeals from the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong county: Of October Term, 1884, Nos. 154 and 155.
    These were, in the court below, petitions by Michael Kunkle to open judgments entered on two judgment notes, and let the defendant in to a defence.
    The first petition, dated September 17th, 1883, was as follows:
    “ That on the 13th day of November, 1882, Harry H. Haj^den came to my house and showed me some money which looked to me to be good money, and told me he would give me two hundred dollars of it for fifty dollars. I did not wish to do so, but he talked to me and finally offered me two hundred dollars of it if I would give him $40. I had no money and told him so. He said he would take my note at one year. I finally gave him my note for $40, payable in one year and dated November 15th, 1882. He promised to bring me the,money in a few days. That I have since discovered the whole matter to be a fraud, and have never received the money which he promised, nor anypart thereof. The note is wholly without consideration. I therefore pray the court to open above judgment which was entered on said note, and let me into a defence.”
    The other petition set out that under similar circumstances Hayden procured from the petitioner, on November 24th, 1882, another note for $50 on a promise to furnish him $200 more of said money within a ‘month.
    The notes were transferred by Hayden to one J. A. Blaney, who entered judgment on them September 4, 1883.
    
      In pursuance of the petitions the court granted rules to show cause why the judgments should not be opened. After the filing of depositions and argument, these rules were discharged by the court, Neale, P. J., presiding; whereupon the petitioner took these appeals, assigning for error the refusal of the court to open the judgments.
    
      .Leason (with whom was McCain) for appellant.—
    The appellee resisted the opening of the judgments on the ground that because the appellant had allowed himself to be drawn into an illegal contract, equity should grant him no relief, and upon this ground the court dismissed the rules to show cause and refused to grant the prayer of appellant’s petition. The entry of a judgment on a warrant of attorney does not render the contract executed, and does not preclude an inquiry into the character of the consideration: Ham et al. v. Smith, 87 Pa. St. 63. The contract between Hayden and Kunkle was part parol and part written, in which Hayden promised to give Kunkle 8200 in one month from the 15th of November, 1882, in good money, and Kunkle gave Hayden his judgment note for 840, payable in one year. The same kind of a bargain was again made when Hayden received the $50 note. If a contract is enforced against one party it must be enforced as to the other. No court would compel Hayden to perform his promises. Yet the court below enforces upon Kunkle the performance of his part of the contract. The fact that the consideration to have been furnished by Hayden is alleged by the appellee to have been spurious money, is sufficient to render the contract void: Comly v. Hillegass, 94 Pa. St. 132; Holt v. Green, 78 Pa. St. 201.
    
      W. D. Patton for appellee.
    The rule in such cases as this is that the law leaves the parties where it finds them. A party to a fraud cannot seek relief in the courts from the consequences of his unlawful act: Winton v. Freeman, 6 Out. 866; Hershey v. Weiting, 14 Wright 240; Evans v. Dravo, 12 Harris 62. Kunkle knew of the fraudulent purpose, and hence he cannot be said to be defrauded. A party to a fraudulent transaction cannot give his own fraud in evidence : Gill v. Henry, 14 Norris 388.
   The opinion of the court was filed October 27th, 1884.

Per Curiam.

The claim made by the appellant shows that he is in no condition to invoke the aid of a court of equity. He affirms his own turpitude in the very contracts from which he seeks to be relieved. He entered into them after due consideration for the purpose of gain, and with full knowledge of the unlawful character of the transactions. He cannot now be relieved from the judgments which he authorized to be entered against him, by showing his own illegal and immoral acts: Holt v. Green, 23 P. F. S. 198; Gill v. Henry, 14 Norris 388; Winton v. Freeman, 6 Out. 366. The court was clearly right in refusing to open the judgments and in discharging the rules.

Decrees affirmed and appeals dismissed at the costs of the appellant in each case.  