Sec 349

In accordance with the distinctions maintained in respect to agency,10 the courts will not enforce a contract of partnership for conducting an illegal enterprise, or compel an account of profits of such transactions.1 Such a partnership will be a nullity, so far as concerns all executory action.2 The same rule applies when the structure of a partnership is technically illegal. Hence, under a statute requiring the names of all pawnbrokers to be printed over the doors of their shops, it was ruled that an agreement for a pawnbroker partnership with dormant partners is illegal;3 and the same rule applies to a partnership as attorneys, by parties made by statute to be incompetent to act as such.4 - A partner in an illegal transaction cannot enforce any executory action on the other partners.5 But when the partnership affairs are closed, one partner cannot excuse himself from accounting to the other on the ground that one of the objects of the partnership was illegal.6

Landlord cannot recover rent of house to be illegally used.

Partnership in illegal enterprise will not be enforced.

1 Supra, sec 211, 291; infra, sec 733. As to market overt, see infra, sec 734; Story, Eq. Jur. 12th ed. sec 421-434, 436.

2 Cottle v. Cleaves, 70 Me. 256; and so as to duress, supra, sec 146.

3 Story, Eq. Jur. 12th ed. sec 395-8; Murray v. Ballou, 1 John. Ch. 566; Heatley v. Finster, 2 John. Ch. 158. As to notice, see Story, ut supra, sec 401 et seq.

4 See infra, sec 3.74.

5 Flight v. Clarke, 13 M. & W. 155; Cowan v. Melbourn, L. K. 2 Ex. 230; Riley v. Jordan, 122 Mass. 231; Ralston v. Boady, 20 Ga. 449. As to distinctions see supra, sec 343.

6 Ritchie v. Smith, 6 C. B. 462.

7 Gas Light Co. v. Turner, 5 Bing. N. C. 666; 6 ib. 324.

8 Supra, sec 343.

9 Feret v. Hill, 15 C. B. 207; see Cowan v. Milbourn, L. R. 2 Ex. 230.

10 See infra, sec 357.

Sec 350

An insurance of an illegal voyage is void; and the insured cannot recover in case of loss;7 nor can the underwriter recover the premium, which, if the voyage was illegal, was without consideration.8 But the illegality is not imputable to either ship-owner or insurer if caused by the act of the master alone, without their cognizance or connivance.9 - An insurance of Insurances on illegal voyages are void, and so of illegal sales.

1 Knowles v. Haughton, 11 Ves. 168; Ewing v. Osbaldistone, 2 M. & Cr. 53; Sykes v. Beadon, L. R. 11 Ch. D. 170; but see Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. 70, and criticism in Wald's Pollock, 329; Dunham v. Presby, 120 Mass. 285; Anderson v. Powell, 44 Iowa, 20; Mc-Williams v. Bryan, 21 La. An. 211; Seely v. Beck, 42 Mo. 143.

2 Story on Part. 7th ed. sec 6; citing Gordon v. Howden, 12 Cl. & F..237; Watson v. Fletcher, 7 Grat. 1 (a case of a gaming partnership); McPherson v. Pemberton, 1 Jones, N. C. 378.

3 Armstrong v. Armstrong, 3 Myl. & K. 45; Armstrong v. Lewis, 2 Cr. & M. 274.

4 Williams v. Jones, 5 B. & C. 108; Joyce ex parte, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 596.

5 Story on Part. 7th ed. sec 6; De Begnis v. Armistead, 10 Bing. 107; Stewart v. Gibson, 7 Cl. & F. 107; Watson v. Murray, 8 C. E. Green, 257.

6 See infra, sec 357; Watts v. Brooks, 3 Ves. 612; Sharp v. Taylor, 2 Phill. 801; Harvey v. Varney, 98 Mass. 118; Sampson v. Shaw, 101 Mass. 148; Snell v. Dwight, 120 Mass. 9; King v. Win-ants, 71 N. C. 469; Belcher v. Conner, 1 S. C. 88; Pfeiffer v. Maltby, 38 Tex. 523. That illegal may be severed from legal items in an account, see Anderson v. Powell, 44 Iowa, 20; supra, sec 338.

7 Brandon v. Nesbitt, 6 T. R. 23; Furtado v. Rodgers, 3 B. & P. 191.

8 Jenkins v. Power, 6 M. & S. 282.

9 Dudgeon v. Pembroke, L. R. 9 Q. B. 581; see infra, sec 353.

1iquors meant for illegal sale is invalid when the insurance is part of an arrangement to further the illegality.1.