Sec 341

Money contributed to violate the lex fori cannot be recovered back when the money has been so applied.9 But to bar such recovery, as will presently be seen more fully, the money must be given for the specific purpose. It is not enough that the party lending might have foreseen that the money would have been likely to have gone to an illegal object, or that the person borrowing was engaged in illegal enterprises.1 Nor will it be enough that there was an intention that the party borrowing should illegally appropriate the loan. He must know that the borrower is purposing the specific illegal use, and must be implicated as a confederate in the transaction.2 - The rule precluding the recovery of money paid for illegal purposes applies to money paid over as the price of a fictitious claim intended by the parties to be fraudulently sold;3 to money paid as the price of an illegal compromise of a prosecution, after the prosecution had been compounded in pursuance of the agreement;4 and to money lost at illegal gaming or wagering, unless the plaintiff is a victim of fraud, or there is a statutory right given.6

So of money contributed to illegal purpose.

1 Eq. Jur. 12th ed. sec 298.

2 See Harrington v. Bigelow, 11 Paige, 349; Jones v. Gorman, 7 Ired. Eq. 21; Galt v. Jackson, 9 Ga. 151; Logan v. Gigley, 11 Ga. 246.

3 Infra, sec 345.

4 Infra, sec 353.

5 Ibid.; Bayley v. Faber, 5 Mass. 288; Wheeler v. Russell, 17 Mass. 258. See Myers v. Meinrath, 101 Mass. 367, where Wells, J., said: " In such cases the defence of illegality prevails, not as a protection to the defendant, but as a disability to the plaintiff.".

6 Gregory v. Wendell, 39 Mich. 337; see infra, sec 453.

7 Infra, sec 354.

8 Infra, sec 355.

9 Infra, sec 741; Cannan v. Bryce, 3 B. & Ald. 283 (illegal stock jobbing, see infra, sec 449); Hamilton v. Grainger, 5 H. & N. 40; Pearce v. Brooks, L. R. 1 Ex. 213; U. S. v. Grossmayer, 9 Wall. 72; Sprott v. U. S., 20 Wall. 459; White v. Buss, 3 Cush. 448. Thus, a party cannot recover back money illegally paid a jailer to obtain the release of a prisoner without bail. Smart v. Cason, 50 111. 195.

Sec 342

A party cannot recover the price of goods sold by him to further an illegal enterprise.6 Thus a party cannot recover the price of beer sold by him for the purpose of unlawful retailing;7 or the price of goods to be unlawfully exported;8 or the price of drugs to be used in an unlawful manufacture;6 or of goods to be used in an insurrection.10 But it is not enough to defeat recovery that the party selling should have seen that it was probable that the goods would be in future illegally used, for if so, few sales of goods could stand.11 It is necessary that the goods should be contributed for the express purpose of promoting the illegal design, and that the party selling should be implicated in this design.12

And of price of goods contributed to illegal purpose.

1 Infra, sec 343; Wh. Cr. L. 8th ed. sec 154-5, 168.

2 Clarke v. Shee, 1 Cowp. 197; Smith v. Bromley, 2 Doug. 698, n; Waymell v. Reed, 5 T. R. 599; Oxford Iron Co. v. Spradley, 46 Ala. 99; Michael v. Bacon, 49 Mo. 474; and cases cited infra, sec 343.

3 Begbie v. Phosphate Co., L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 679; infra, sec 744.

4 Goodall v. Lowndes, 6 Q. B. 464; infra, sec 483 et seq.

5 Thistlewood v. Cracroft, 1 M. & S.

5(X); see infra, sec 454, for further distinctions.

6 Lightfoot v. Tenant, 1 B. & P. 551; Bell ex parte, 1 M. & S. 751; Pearce v. Brooks, L. R. 1 Ex. 213; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410; infra, sec 446, 473.

7 Brooker v. Wood, 5 B. & Ad. 1052; Briggs v. Campbell, 25 Vt. 704.

8 Lightfoot v. Tenant, 1 B. & P. 551.

9 Langton v. Hughes, 1M.&S. 593. 10 Hanauer v. Doane, 12 Wall. 342. 11 Infra, sec 343.

12 Infra, sec 343; Wh. Cr. L. 8th ed. sec 180-1, 1905.