"No agreement between parties to do a thing prohibited by law or subversive of any public interest which the law cherishes, will be judicially enforced. This means that no party to such a contract has any right giving him any standing in a court. But if public policy interests may be subserved by awarding to either relief against the other, courts award it."62

60 Pickering vs. Railway Co., L. R.,

3 C. P., 250. 61 Carleton vs. Woods, 28 N. H.,

290; Shore vs. Carpenter, 54 Vt. 55. 62 Meech vs. Lee. 82 Mich., 274, 46 N. W., 388.

"In the doing of this it is deemed that the Court gives relief to the public through one of such parties,63 especially to one who has lost the right to object.64 This applies to executed contracts as well as to those merely executory,65 and to giving of money damages,66 and to relief by injunction.67 Also the relief may be moulded, in equity, as public interest may require." 68 69 A defense that a contract is void on account of being illegal or against public policy, cannot be waived by a party thereto,70 but if the illegality might have been pleaded as a defense and was not, a judgment upon an illegal contract, is deemed freed from the impurity.71

63 Cone vs. Russell, 48 N. J. Eq.,

208, 21Atl.,847. 64 Natl. Bank & L. Co. vs. Petrie,

189 U. S., 423. 65 2 Pomery's Eq. Jur., Sec. 941,

942. 66 Hobbs vs. Boatright, 195 Mo.,

693, 93 S. W., 934. 67 Basket vs. Mlss, 115 N. C, 448,

20 S. E., 733.

68 Seattle Electric Co. vs. Suoqualurie Falls Power Co. (Wash.), 82 Pac, 713; 1 L. R. A. (N. S.), 508.

69 Bishop on Contracts, 2nd Edition, Sec. 470.

70 Camsler vs. Penland, 125 Mo.,

578, 34 S. E., 683.

71 Owens vs. Machinery Co., 96 Ga.,

408, 23 S. E., 416.