Sec 360

A contract whose object is to violate a statute will not be enforced by the courts of the state by which the statute is enacted.8 Whether a contract conflicts with a statute is to be determined in part by the construction of the contract, in part by the construction of the statute. So far as concerns the contract, if it is susceptible of two probable constructions, one legal and the other illegal, that which is legal is to be preferred.1 So far as concerns statutes the English rule is " that they should be construed according to the intent of the parliament which passed the act;" provided that the words be " sufficient to accomplish the manifest purpose of the act."2 In England "the effect of plain and unambiguous words is not to be limited by judicial construction, even though anomalous results should follow,"3 and the expressions in the books that an act of parliament against " common right," or " natural equity" would be void, are regarded "as warning rather than authority."4 In this country questions of this class are determined by constitutional limitation, statutes conflicting with constitutional sanctions being inoperative. But here, also, we must fall back on the presumption of legality. If there are two probable constructions of a statute, one of which is constitutional, and the other of which is unconstitutional, the constitutional will be preferred.5 And, generally, " before we can make out a contract is illegal under a statute we must make out distinctly that the statute has provided that it shall be so."6

1 Worthington v. Curtis, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 419.

2 Infra, sec 725.

3 Hastelow v. Jackson, 8 B. & C. 221; Bone v. Ekless, 5 H. & N. 925; Sampson v. Shaw, 101 Mass. 145; Bailey v. O'Mahony, 33 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 239; and cases cited supra, sec 354 et seq.; infra, sec 725.

4 2 Story's Eq. Jur. sec 317; Taylor v. Plumer, 3 M. & S. 562.

5 Hastelow v. Jackson, 8 B. & C. 222; Browning v. Morris, 2 Cowp. 792.

6 Supra, sec 356. 7 Infra, sec 725.

8 Hope v. Hope, 8 D. M. & G. 731; Cork, etc. R. R. in re, L. R. 4 Ch. Ap. 748; Yorkshire Wagon Co. v. Maclure, L. R. 19 Ch. D. 478; Grell v. Levy, 16 C.

B. N. S. 79; Graeme v. Wroughton, 11 Exch. 146; Neuman v. Neuman, 4 M. & S. 66; Pellecat v. Angell, 2 C. M. & R. 311; Cope v. Rowlands, 2 M. & W. 149; Bank U. S. v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527; Thomas v. Richmond, 12 Wall. 349; Durgin v. Dyer, 68 Me. 142; Springfield Bank v. Merrick, 14 Mass. 322; Wheeler v. Russell, 17 Mass. 258; Miller v. Post, 1 Allen, 434; Smith v. Arnold, 106 Mass. 269; Prescott v. Bat-tersby, 119 Mass. 285; Hackett v. Chellerton, 13 R. I.; Barton v. Plank Road, 17 Barb. 397; Peck v. Burr, 10 N. Y. 294; Mitchell v. Smith, 1 Binn. 110; 4 Dall. 269; Seidenbender v. Charles, 4 S. & R. 159; Eberman v. Reitzel, 1 W. & S. 181; Rhodes v. Sparks, 6 Barr, 473; Tenney v. Foote, 4 111. App. 594; Caldwell v.

Contract to violate statute illegal.

Bridal, 48 Iowa, 15; Ryan v. School Dist., 27 Minn. 433; Woods v. Armstrong, 54 Ala. 150; Decell v. Lewen-thal, 57 Miss. 331; Cotten v. Mackenzie, 57 Miss. 418. As to simony-statutes see Bishop of London v. Ffytche, 1 East, 437; Fletcher v. Sondes, 3 Bing. 501; Groldham v. Edwards, 16 C. B. 437; 18 C. B. 389; Fox v. Bishop of Chester, 6 Bing. 1; and see Smith's L. C. 7th Am. ed. 680.

1 Supra, sec 337; infra, sec 655.

2 Pollock, 3d ed. 269, citing opinions of the judges in the Sussex Peerage Case, 11 Cl. & P. 143, per Tindal, C.

J., per Lord Brougham, at p. 150. And see per Knight Bruce, L. J., Crofts v. Middleton, 8 D. M. G. 217; per Lord Blackburn, in River Wear Co. v. Adam-son, 2 Ap. Cas. 764.

3 Pollock, 3d ed. 269, citing Cargo ex Argos, L. R. 5 P. C. 152.

4 Pollock, ut supra, citing Willes, J., Lee v. R. R., L. R. 6 C. P. 576.

5 Wh. on Ev. sec 1250.

6 Field, J., L. R. 4 Q. B. D. p. 224. That contracts to violate liquor laws are void, see Whart. Con. of L. sec 482-497; Taylor v. Pickett, 52 Iowa, 467.