XI. CHAPTER differences for him, and after they were settled a dispute arose between them as to the amount of money so paid by the broker. The case was referred to the plaintiff and three other arbitrators, who awarded the sum of 306l. 12s. 6d. to be due from the defendant to his broker. The broker then drew on the defendant for 100l., part of this sum; the defendant accepted the bill, and the broker indorsed it to the plaintiff. It was held that the bill was void as between the broker and the defendant, and the plaintiff having been an arbitrator, had notice of the illegal consideration, and stood in the same situation as the broker (a). Where a broker had settled differences for his principal in omnium, had taken his principal's acceptance for the amount, and indorsed the bill when overdue, it was held, first, that jobbing in omnium was within the act; secondly, that the bill was void in the hands of the broker; and thirdly, that having been indorsed when overdue, it was also void in the hands of the indorsee, as against the acceptor (b). A stock-jobber gave his broker a promissory note for differences paid for him by his broker, and the broker indorsed it overdue to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs threatened to sue the defendants upon the note, but they consented to give up the note, and take the defendants' bond instead, knowing, at the time they took the bond, that the note had been given on an illegal consideration. Held, that they could not originally have recovered upon the note, nor afterwards upon the bond (c). Where a man gave his acceptance for differences owing from himself to the drawer, and the drawer indorsed the bill for value without notice, it was held that the indorsee might recover against the drawer (d). And as the statute does not expressly avoid securities given for differences, it should seem, the indorsee might have recovered against the acceptor (e). Where a man sells stock of which he is not possessed, and afterwards buys it and transfers it to the vendee, he might, notwithstanding the statute, maintain an action for the price (ƒ). This act is to be construed strictly (g). Besides the cases which have been mentioned, there are (a) Steers v. Ashley, 6 T. R. 61; 1 Esp. 166. (b) Brown v. Turner, 7 T. R. 630; 2 Esp. 631. (c) Amory v. Merryweather, 2 B. & C. 573; 4 D. & R. 86. (d) Day v. Stuart, 6 Bing. 109; 3 M. & P. 334. (e) See Mr. J. Holroyd's obser vations in Broughton v. Manchester Water Works Company, 3 B. & Ald. 10. (f) Mortimer v. M'Callan. 7 M. & W. 20; affirmed, 9 M. & W. 636. (g) Wells v. Porter, 2 Bing. N. C. 730; Hewitt v. Price, 4 M. & G. 355. XI. many other instances of securities expressly avoided by CHAPTER the legislature: as, gaming policies on ships or lives (h); sale of an office (i); a stipulation with a sheriff for ease or Other confavour (k); a security whereby a creditor of a bankrupt who siderations has proved his debt is to receive more than others (1); or to illegal by receive anything for signing the bankrupt's certificate (m); statute. or for not opposing the order for his discharge (n); a security given by a man for a debt from which he has been discharged by the Insolvent Debtors' Act (o). And to these (except where the statute (p) gives a title to a holder 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 (9). 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 20s., 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 (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; 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; Taylor v. Wilson, 5 Exch. 251; Hankey v. Cobb, 1 Q. B. 490; Smith v. Saltzman, 9 Exch. 235. (n) 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134, s. 166. (o) 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; (p) 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 41, s. 1; (2) Wyat v. Bulmer, 2 Esp. 538. See, too, Begbie v. Levi, 1 C. & J. 180. (r) Scott v. Gilmore, 3 Taunt. 226. Quære tamen, see Crookshanks v. Rose, 1 M. & Rob. 100; 5 C. & P. 19. 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. Ovens v. Porter, 4 C. & P. 367. CHAPTER thus purged of those items, the plaintiff might recover on the note (s). XI. Remedy of So a bill of exchange accepted to secure payment of money 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. But a note given for the amount of an attorney's bill not delivered pursuant to 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, is good (w). So where a member of a company not registered, and therefore illegal under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89, s. 4, had given a promissory note to secure advances for the purposes of the company made to him by it, it was held that the consideration for the note being vitiated by illegality, it could not be enforced (x). If a person be employed to make an illegal contract, and agent against at the request of his principal discharges a claim made on principal. such a contract, the agent can recover from the principal the money so paid on his account (y). Notice of It is no defence that the plaintiff being a transferee of a fraudulent or bill or note had notice of a frauduleut or illegal consideraillegal contion, if he can deduce title from a prior party not shown to have had any such notice (z). sideration. Illegality of A judgment recovered by default will not be set aside, consideration on the ground of illegality in the consideration, unless the defendant can affect the plaintiff with knowledge of that when judg. ment recovered. (s) Crookshanks v. Rose, 1 M. & Rob. 100; 5 C. & P. 19. 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. (t) De Begnis v. Armistead, 10 Bing. 107; 3 M. & P. 511. (u) Hall v. Franklin, 3 M. & W. 259; 1 Har. & W. 8. (w) Jeffreys v. Evans, 14 M. & W. 210. (r) As between those parties, Jennings v. Hommond, L. R., 9 Q. B. D. 225; nor by a subsequent indorsee without value and with notice, being a trustee for the company, Shaw v. Benson, 11 Q. B. D. 563. But see Peat v. Fowler, 55 L. J., Q. B. 271. (y) Knight v. Cambers, 24 L. J., C. P. 121; 15 Com. B. 562; Knight v. Fitch, 24 L. J., C. P. 122; 15 Com. B. 500; Rosewarne v. Billing, 33 L. J., C. P. 55; 15 Com. B., N. S. 316. (z) Masters v. Ibberson, 18 L. J., C P. 348; 8 C. B. 100. Code, s. 29 (3). fact; but the Court has permitted him to try that in an issue (a). CHAPTER consideration. If part of the consideration of a bill or note be fraudu- Illegality of lent or illegal, the instrument is vitiated altogether (b). part of the Where the parties have 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. If a bill originally given upon an illegal consideration Renewal of be renewed, the renewed bill is also void (c), unless the bill given on illegal conamount be reduced by excluding so much of the considera- sideration. tion for the original bill as was illegal (d). And if a bill or note be originally without any consideration, and be given up, another bill between the same parties being substituted for it, the giving up the first bill is no consideration for the second, and both alike are incapable for want of consideration of being enforced between the immediate parties, though it would be otherwise at the suit of a holder in due course (e). (a) George v. Stanley, 4 Taunt. 683; Davison v. Franklin, 1 B. & Ad. 142. (b) Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1077; Scott v. Gilmore, 3 Taunt. 226; Crookshanks v. Rose, 5 Car. & P. 19; 1 M. & Rob. 100; Story on Promissory Notes, s. 190; Williams v. Bulmore, 33 L. J., Chanc. 461; Lound v. Grimwade, 39 Ch. D. 605; 57 L. J. 125. (c) Chapman v. Black, 2 B. & Ald. 588; Wynne v. Callender, 1 Russ. 293; Preston v. Jackson, 2 Stark. 237. (d) Ibid. ; and see Hubner v. Richardson, Bayley, 6th ed. 527. In some cases, where there has been a change of parties, the de- (e) Southall v. Rigg, 11 C. B. |