trip, expending his own money, expecting to be repaid by his uncle. Can he compel the uncle to make payment?

5. A diamond ring was sold to an infant by A, who expected B, the infant's father, to pay for it. The ring was charged to B. B had not au thorized the purchase on his credit, but subsequently promised A that he would pay for it. Can A recover from B?

6. A gave his note to the trustees of a church to assist in the purchase of a bell. The trustees did not collect sufficient money to make the purchase, and after A's death and without purchasing the bell they sued A's heirs for the amount of the note. Can they recover?

7. B asked A to remove a hay stack by ten o'clock Monday as B intended to fire the stubble on which the stack stood which A promised to do. B fired the stubble at that time, and noticing the stack had not been removed, B to keep it from being destroyed removed it himself. He afterward sued A for work of removing the stack? Can he recover?

8. A furnished B a horse to drive all summer free of charge. Subsequently B promised to pay A for the use of the horse. Can A enforce the promise?

9. A owed B $100.00. He paid B $50.00 and B gave him a receipt in full. B subsequently sued for the remaining $50.00. Can he collect it?

10. A debt is barred by a discharge in bankruptcy. The bankrupt after becoming prosperous promises his creditor that he will pay him the amount of the debt so barred. Can the creditor enforce the payment?

11. A sued B without any foundation for the action and got B to give him his note for $100.00 to dismiss the suit. Can A recover on the note?

12. A and B had an honest difference of opinion as to the grade of some grain which A had purchased from B. B claimed that he made no guarantee as to the grade of the grain. To avoid a law suit B gave A his note for $50.00. Can A recover on the note?

13. A owes B $100.00 which is due. B promises to extend the time one year. Thirty days after, B sues A for the debt. A pleads that it is not yet due. Can B recover?

14. A rescued B from drowning. B promised to pay A $100.00 for saving his life. A sued B for the money. Can he recover?

15. A's house was set on fire and destroyed. A offered B, who was the sheriff of the county that he would give him $100.00 if he would arrest the culprit who set the house on fire. B arrested the culprit. Can B recover the $100.00?

CHAPTER V

LEGALITY OF SUBJECT-MATTER

66. Introduction. The law allows great latitude in the making of contracts and only those are forbidden which are considered to be against the best interests of the public. It is the policy of the law to permit one to make all contracts that are possible and to forbid only those that are objectionable on the grounds of public policy and good morals. However, the law cannot encourage law-breaking by recognizing as legal any agreement made for the purpose of violating the law. Although all the elements necessary to a valid contract be present, if the purpose of the agreement be illegal it will not hold.

67. Meaning. Legality of subject-matter means, conformity to law of the thing to be done or omitted. Since it is the policy of the law to allow everything except that which is forbidden, it is necessary to discuss only those agreements which are illegal or prohibited. These illegal contracts may be divided into three classes:

1. Gaming and wagering contracts.

2. Contracts made on Sunday.
3. Contracts against public policy.

A gaming contract

68. Gaming and wagering contracts. is an agreement between two or more persons to play at cards, dice, or other contrivance, and that one shall be the loser and the other the winner. This also includes betting on games of billiards, backgammon, lotteries, cock-fighting, horse-racing, etc.

A wagering contract is where two or more parties agree that a certain sum of money or other thing shall be paid or delivered to one of them on the happening or not happening of an uncertain event. One of the most common forms of the wager agreement is to speculate on the rise and fall of the market. To contract for the purchase or sale in the future of a commodity

at a price now stated is not gambling if an actual delivery is intended. If, however, it is the intention to settle by a payment of differences and no actual delivery was intended the contract is illegal.

At common law gaming and wagering contracts were valid, but statutes have been enacted in all the states declaring such contracts to be unlawful. Wagering contracts remained in force in England up to 1845, when Parliament passed an act making them void.

A general summary of the statutes in the United States is as follows:

1. That any security given for money lost by betting is void. 2. That money lost at a gaming table may be recovered as a common debt.

3. That no money or other thing won by betting can be sued for.

4. That wagers on elections are prohibited, and money deposited thereon is forfeited.

69. Contracts made on Sunday. Rule: The common law does not prohibit the making of contracts on Sunday; therefore, contracts made on this day are valid unless they are expressly forbidden by statute.

The statutes usually declare that contracts to do work on Sunday which is not necessary are void, but a contract made on Sunday to do work on a week day is valid. All contracts for the sale of goods, wares and merchandise on Sunday are unenforceable. When a contract has been performed on Sunday it is as valid as if made on a week day.

A sold B 100 boxes oranges and they were paid for and delivered on Sunday. The following day B endeavored to have the sale set aside and recover his money because the contract was performed on Sunday. He cannot succeed.

70. Contracts against public policy. Rule: If the subjectmatter of a contract relates to the performance of an act which will be detrimental and injurious to the citizens of a community and the public in general the contract is void.

And this is true even though it can be shown that neither party will lose or suffer from its fulfillment. The question in this class of contracts is not whether the parties to the contract are injured, but whether or not public rights are prejudiced.

The following are some of the most important classes of contracts which are void, because against public policy:

1. Agreements tending to injure public service, or good government.

2. Agreements which are contrary to good morals. 3. Agreements which affect the freedom of marriage. 4. Agreements in restraint of trade.

5. Agreements which tend to pervert the course of justice. 6. Agreements for the payment of usury.

71. Agreements tending to injure public service or good government. Rule: An agreement by a candidate to share the emoluments of a public office in consideration of aid in securing his election is void.

"Emolument" is that which is received as a compensation for services, as salaries, fees, etc.

Lobbying contracts are void. They are agreements to render service in securing legislative action through personal influence with public servants and through other objectionable and sometimes corrupt means.

A promised B, a congressman, $500.00 in consideration that B procure for A a contract to furnish army supplies to the government. B, according to the agreement, procured the coveted contract, but he cannot enforce payment by A, because the contract is void as against public policy.

But a contract whereby one agrees to go before a legislative body or its committees and present a certain argument, or to advise with them, is entirely proper.

72. Agreements which are contrary to good morals. Rule: Where the undertaking on either side is to do or permit to be done something decidedly immoral, such as publishing

indecent books or pictures and the like, the law will not aid either party in enforcing performance.

The immorality must be of a marked character, for the law does not observe a fastidious delicacy. In general, only those contracts are held void for immorality which precedents have settled to be immoral, a question not always open to discussion. If the contract in such cases has been executed the courts will not rescind it, and, if executory, will not enforce it.

A, the author of an obscene manuscript, contracted with B, a publisher, for its publication. Relying on B's promise, A made extensive preparations for the sale of the book. B subsequently refused to carry out his part of the contract, which resulted in a heavy loss to A. The law will not aid A in seeking redress. The courts, in such cases, will leave the parties where they found them.

73. Agreements which affect the freedom of marriage. Any agreement whose object or whose tendency is to restrict the freedom of marriage is against public policy and unenforceable. The policy of the law is to encourage marriage and to discourage any interference with the freedom of choice.

Rule: Agreements never to marry, or not to marry within a given time, which is unreasonable, or not to marry any other than a given person, are void.

A wager, in which one man bets another that he would not marry within a certain time, was held to be void, as giving to one of the parties a pecuniary interest in his celibacy. A promise to pay or do anything in consideration of the promisee's bringing about a marriage is void. Such agreements are called marriage brokerage contracts and are unenforceable.

74. Agreements in restraint of trade. An agreement is in restraint of trade whenever its operation tends to interfere with the freedom of any of the parties thereto in pursuing a calling or business. Such an agreement is not illegal if reasonable, but if it is unreasonable it is void.

Rule: Contracts which restrain a person from engaging in his trade or profession for an unlimited time, or require him to abstain entirely from its exercise, are usually void, depending upon the circumstances, and the nature of the business.