
    
      MEUNIER vs. DUPERRON.
    
    No repetitionwrongdoer,
    The plaintiff having, at the instigation of the defendant, arrested a free negro woman, and shipped her off, was prosecuted* found guilty, fined, imprisoned and condemned to heavy damages. Having suffered the imprisonment and paid the fine and damages, . he brought the present action to compel the plaintiff to indemnify him, or pay his proportion of the ihoney disbursed. To the petition the defendant demurred, and there was a judgment for him, from which the plaintiff appealed.
    Turner, for the demurrer.
    Altho’ á Wrongdoer^ who has paid the damages awarded to the injured party, he is without any action against those with whom he committed the trespass. He cannot have the action pro socio, nor the action man-d&ti. Nec enim ulla societas rhaleficiorum, L 1 ⅞ 14 Jf. Tut. & rat. Nec societas aut mandatum jfla* gitiosce rei ullas vires habet, /. 35 ⅞ 2 contr. empt Mei turpis nullum mandatum sst. The party, violated the law, cannot invoke its aid td compel his accomplices to bear their share of the burden. 1 Bro. Civ. Law 381, puffendorff, L iu & n. b. 3 ch. 7 ) 7, Collins vs. Blanton, 2 Wilson 341, Civil. Code260, art. 8 and 2,64, art. 31, 33.
    East. District.
    April 1814.
    
      Moreau, contra.
    These strict principles of the Roman law are not denied: but they are not followed in our practice. “There is,” says Pothier, “granted in this case to him who has paid the whole, an action.against each of the co-debtors, to recover from him his part. See Papon, liv. 24, t. 12, n. 4. This action does not arise from the tort which they have committed together j nemo enim ex delicto conseguí potest actionem : it arises from the payment which one of the debtors has made of a debt which lie owed in common with his co-debtors, and from equity, which does _not permit that his co-debtors should profit at his expence by the discharge of a debt for which they were as much bound as he. This is a kind of action utihs negotiorum gestorum, founded upon the same principles of equity on which is founded the action ..that is given in our jurisprudence to the surety who has paid, against his co-sureties.” 1 Traite des Obligations 177, no. 282.
    , But, we need not invoke any authority. The plaintiff was perfectly innocent, the defendant represented the wench as liis runaway slave, whom, os a Constable, the plaintiff w«s bound to arrest.
   By the Court.

The plaintiff and appellant complains that having, at the request of the appelleó, arrested a person, whom the appellee pretended to be his slave, he was tried and condemned to a reparation in damages and five months’ imprisonment- He contends that the misrepresentation of the appellee, being the only cause whieh Jed him to the commission of that act, which brought on him that sentence, the appellee ⅛ bound to reimburse him, by way of damages, the money which he has been compelled to pay to the party injured, and the fine and expenees which he has incurred.

Ik support of that claim, he has invoked prín-ciples, the truth and soundness of which are incontrovertible ; but, which appear to the court inapplicable to a case of this nature. It is law, indeed, that he, by whose fault any damage has been cans-ed, is bound to repair it ; and on this particular instance, if nothing more than a-civil suit had been brought against the appellant, and a reparation in damages there awarded, in favor of the party injured, the appellant, on shewing that he acted in good faith, might, perhaps, have maintained an(aetion against the person, by whose fraud or fault, he had been induced to commit the act.

Bit r where the act done is unlawful, and the person who committed it, has been tried, found guilty and punished*' he. cannot throw on ' anothe* burden of his sentence, under pretence that he was by him persuaded to commit the act : for such actions are denied by the laws. Si Titius de damno vel de injuria facienda mandet tibi; licet enimpcenam ipsius facti nomine prcestiteris non tamen uttam hahes adversas Titium actionemi Inst. tit. 27 \ 7.

The appellant himself admits this to be the law: but, he alleges the act was not unlawful on his part; because he executed it without any evil intention, under the belief that the person whom he arrested and shipped off was the slave of the appellee. This is contending in other words that he was innocent of the crime of which he has been found guilty. For, there is no crime, where there is no evil intention.

The verdict of the jury, however, settles this 'question. It is evidence of the guilt of the appellant í the allegation that he acted in good faith cannot now be heard.

It is ordered and decreed that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.  