as gaming policies on ships or lives;(h) sale of an office ;(i) a stipulation with a sheriff for ease or favor; (k) a security whereby a creditor of a bankrupt who has proved his debt is to receive more than others,(7) or to receive anything for signing the bankrupt's certificate, (m) or for not opposing the order for his discharge;(n) a security given by a man for a debt from which he has been

(h) 19 Geo. 2, c. 37; 14 Geo. 3, C. 48.

(i) 5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 16; 49 Geo. 3, c. 126; 53 Geo. 3, c. 129.

(k) 23 Hen. 6, c. 9.

(7) 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 268; Rose v. Main, 1 Bing. N. C. 357 (27 E. C. L. R.); 1 Scott 127; Davis v. Holding, 1 M. & W. 159.

(m) 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 202; Birch v. Jervis, 3 C. & P. 379 (14 E. C. L. R.); Taylor v. Wilson, 5 Exch. 251; Hankey v. Cobb, 1 Q. B. 490 (41 E. C. L. R.); Smith v. Saltzman, 9 Exch. 235.

(n) 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134, s. 166.

lor v. Turley, 33 Maryland 500; Hale v. Huston, 44 Alabama 134; Lawson v. Miller, Ibid. 616; Winter v. Jones, 22 Louis. Ann. 485; Robertson v. Shores, 7 Coldwell 164; Torbett v. Worthy, 1 Heiskill 107; Crosby v. Tucker, 21 Louis. Ann. 512; Bailey v. Milner, 1 Abbott C. C. 261; Prigeon v. Smith, 31 Texas 171; Goodman v. McGehee, Ibid. 252; Reavis v. Blackshear, 30 Ibid. 753; Scott v. Davidson, 33 Texas 807; Calfee v. Burgess, 3 West Va. 274; Thornburg v. Harris, 3 Coldwell 157; Brown v. Wylie, 2 West Va. 502; Potts v. Gray, 3 Coldwell 468; Peltz v. Long, 40 Missouri 522; Crawford v. Storm, 41 Miss. 540; Reeve v. Doughty, 19 Louis. Ann. 164; Huck v. Haller, Ibid. 257; Gill v. Creed, 3 Coldwell 295. So also, as to other matters connected with the Confederate service, Hamilton v. Nowlin, 5 Coldwell 83; Chancely v. Bailey, 37 Georgia 532; Booker v. Robbins, 26 Arkansas 660; Oxford Iron Co. v. Spradley, 46 Alabama 98; Hunt v. Jones, 66 North Car. 258; Powell v. Smith, Ibid. 401; Ruddell v. Landers, 25 Arkansas 238; McMurtry v. Ramsey, Ibid. 349; Portis v. Green, Ibid. 376; Pickens v. Eskridge, 42 Miss. 114; Tedder v. Odom, 1 Heiskill 68. So in regard to property in slaves emancipated by law: Austin v. Sandal, 19 Louis. Ann. 309; Leslie v. Langham, 40 Alabama 524; McMath v. Johnson, 41 Miss. 439; Thompson v. Warren, 5 Coldwell 644; Lapier v. Bowman, 20 Louis. Ann. 234; Jeffrion v. Wilson, Ibid. 412; White v. Hart, 13 Wallace (S. C.) 646; Osborn v. Nicholson, Ibid. 654; Wilkinson v. Cook, 44 Miss. 367; Willis v. Halliburton, 25 Arkansas 173; Gresham v. Morrow, 40 Geo. 487; McElvain v. Mudd, 44 Alabama 48; Carson v. Hunter, 46 Mo. 467; Venable v. Born, 40 Geo. 74; Hebert v. Chastant, 22 Louis. Ann. 152; Allen v. Tarlton, Ibid. 427; Thompson v. Simmons, Ibid. 450; Officer v. Sims, 2 Heiskill 29; Hand v. Armstrong, 34 Geo. 232. Similar questions have arisen under the laws of several of the states against the sale of intoxicating liquors: Pecker v. Kennisen, 46 New Hamp. 488; Widoc v. Webb, 20 Ohio St. 431; Field v. Tibbett, 57 Maine 358; Merrick v. Butler, 2 Lansing 103; Blake v. Sawin, 10 Allen 340; Garland v. Lane, 46 New Hamp. 245.

*discharged by the Insolvent Debtors Act.(o) And to these (except where the statute(p) gives a title to a holder [*145] for value without notice) the same general rules apply as to securities given for a gaming debt, before that statute.

Many cases there are, also, in which, though the transaction is prohibited by the legislature, the security is not expressly avoided. In such instances, the bill is void in the hands of parties to the illegal transaction, or cognizant thereof, but not in the hands of a bona fide indorsee for value, before the bill is due, without notice of the illegality.(g) The 24 Geo. 2, c. 40, s. 12, prohibits persons from recovering a debt incurred by sale of spirituous liquors in less quantities than of the value of 20s.; and, where part of the consideration for a bill was for spirituous liquors, within the statute, and part for money lent, the bill was wholly void in the hands of the payee.(r) But where the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for board and lodging, and for spirituous liquors in quantities of less value than 208., and having made the plaintiff several unappropriated payments, gave a promissory note for the balance, it was held that the plaintiff might appropriate these payments to the discharge of his demands for spirituous liquors, and that, the consideration of the note being thus purged of those items, the plaintiff might recover on the note.(8)

So a bill of exchange accepted to secure payment of money

(6) Evans v. Williams, 1 C. & M. 30; 3 Tyrw. 266; Ashley v. Killick, 5 M. & W. 509; and see Kernot v. Pittis, 2 E. & B. 421 (75 E. C. L. R.); Humphreys v. Willing, 32 L. J., Ex. 33; 1 Hurl. & Colt. 7.

(p) 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 41, s. 1; 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134, s. 166.

(2) Wyat v. Bulmer, 2 Esp. 538.

(r) Scott v. Gilmore, 3 Taunt. 226. Quære tamen, see Crookshanks v. Rose, 1 M. & Rob. 100; 5 C. & P. 19 (24 E. C. L. R.). Where two sorts of spirits had been supplied at one time, the amount of each sort being under 20s., but of both together above 20s., it was held that the value of both was recoverable: Owens v. Porter, 4 C. & P. 367 (19 E. C. L. R.).

(s) Crookshanks v. Rose, 1 M. & Rob. 100; 5 C. & P. 19 (24 E. C. L. R.). The 24 Geo. 2, c. 40, s. 12, is partially repealed by the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 38, as to spirituous liquors consumed elsewhere than on the premises where sold.

'If the price of goods sold, the sale whereof is prohibited by law, constitute part of the consideration of a promissory note, the note is void between the original parties to it; Carlton v. Bailey, 7 Foster 230. Note given for illegal consideration is good in the hands of a bonâ fide indorsee for value ¡ Norris v. Langley, 19 N. Hamp. 423.

taken at the doors of an unlicensed theatre is void(t) in the hands of the payee, who knew the theatre to be unlicensed. Therefore, also, as the statute 57 Geo. 3, c. 99, prohibits spiritual persons from trading, it was held that a joint-stock banking company, in which a beneficed clergyman held shares, could not sue as indorsee on a bill of exchange.(u) In consequence of this decision, an act of *Parliament, 1 Vict. c. 10 (continued by 4 Vict. c. 14), was passed to obviate the inconvenience.

[*146]

But a note given for the amount of an attorney's bill not delivered pursuant to 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, is good.(x)

If a person be employed to make an illegal contract, and at the request of his principal discharges a claim made on such a contract, the agent can recover from the principal the money so paid on his account.(y)

It is no defence that the plaintiff, being a transferree of a bill or note, had notice of a fraudulent or illegal consideration, if he can deduce title from a prior party not shown to have had any such notice.(2)

A judgment recovered by default will not be set aside, on the ground of illegality in the consideration, unless the defendant can affect the plaintiff with knowledge of that fact; but the court has permitted him to try that in an issue. (a)

If part of the consideration of a bit or note be fraudulent or illegal, the instrument is vitiated altogether.(b) Where parties have

(t) De Begnis v. Armistead, 10 Bing. 107; 3 M. & P. 511. (u) Hall v. Franklin, 3 M. & W. 259; 1 Har. & W. 8.

(x) Jeffreys v. Evans, 14 M. & W. 210.

(y) Knight v. Cambers, 24 L. J., C. P. 121; 15 Com. B. 562 (80 E. C. L. R.) ; Knight v. Fitch, 24 L. J., C. P. 122; 15 Com. B. 500 (80 E. C. L. R.); Rosewarne v. Billing, 23 L. J., C. P. 55; 15 Com. B., N. S. 316 (80 E. C. L. R.).

(z) Masters v. Ibberson, 18 L. J., C. P. 348; 8 C. B. 100 (65 E. C. L. R.). (a) George v. Stanley, 4 Taunt. 683; Davison v. Franklin, 1 B. & Ad. 142 (20 E. C. L. R.).

(b) Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1077; Scott v. Gilmore, 3 Taunt. 226; Crookshanks v. Rose, 5 Car. & P. 19 (24 E. C. L. R.); 1 M. & Rob. 100; Story on Promissory Notes, s. 190; Williams v. Bulmore, 33 L. J., Chanc. 461.

woven a web of fraud or wrong, it is said to be no part of the duty of courts of justice to unravel the threads.1

If a bill originally given upon an illegal consideration be renewed, the renewed bill is also void, (c) unless the amount be reduced by excluding so much of the consideration for the original bill as was illegal.(d)

[*147]

*And if a bill or note be originally without any consideration, and it is given up, another bill between the same parties being substituted for it, the giving up of the first bill is no consideration for the second, but both are alike void for want of consideration.(e)

(c) Chapman v. Black, 2 B. & Ald. 588; Wynne v. Callender, 1 Russ. 293; Preston v. Jackson, 2 Stark. 237 (3 E. C. L. R.).

(d) Ibid.; and see Hubner v. Richardson, Bailey, 6th ed. 527. In some cases, where there has been a change of parties, the defendant must plead the whole agreement on which the renewed bill was given: Boulton v. CoghJan, 1 Bing. N. C. 640 (27 E. C. L. R.). In others, where the parties are the it is sufficient to plead the illegality attaching to the original bill, without mentioning the substitution: Hay v. Ayling, 20 L. J., Q. B. 171; 16 Q. B. 423 (71 E. C. L. R.).

same,

(e) Southall v. Rigg, 11 C. B. 481 (73 E. C. L. R.). It has, however, been held that bills accepted subsequently to the passing of the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 90, abolishing the usury laws, in renewal of bills accepted before that act, are not without consideration: Flight v. Reed, 32 L. J., Exch. 265; 1 Hurl. & Colt. 703; Martin, B., dissentiente.

1 Carlton v. Bailey, 7 Foster 230. Where a part of the consideration is illegal and the contract is entire, an action cannot be sustained for any part of the amount: Coburn v. Odell, 10 Foster 540; Perkins v. Cummings, 2 Gray 258; Kidder v. Blake, 45 N. Hamp. 530; Potts v. Gray, 3 Coldwell 468; Peltz v. Long, 40 Mo. 532; Crawford v. Storms, 41 Miss. 540; Doty v. Knox Bank, 16 Ohio St. 133; Widoc v. Webb, 20 Ohio St. 431. It is no defence to an action on a note given in part payment of an account, that part of the account is for goods sold in violation of law, if the amount of the items for goods lawfully sold exceeds the amount of the note: Warren v. Chapman, 105 Mass. 87.