Sec 446

An action for the price of goods to be smuggled into England cannot be maintained in the English courts; even though the plaintiff', a domiciled Englishman, was, at the time of the contract, living in a foreign land in which the contract was made;1 nor can a foreign vendor recover if he combined to defeat the English revenue laws by intentionally packing the goods in a way fitting them to be smuggled.2 But the mere fact that a foreign vendor knew that the purchaser was arranging to evade the English tariff does not preclude the vendor from recovering in an English court.3 When, on the other hand, the object is to violate the home revenue law, this vitiates a contract for the purpose of effecting such object.4

Intended evasion of home revenue laws does not vitiate contract when this is not the consideration.

tration laws as affecting contracts to be acted on in England; but the question was not actually determined. But in our own courts a contract founded on a consideration in violation of our own navigation laws will not be enforced. Maybin v. Coulson, 4 Dall. 298; 4 Yeates, 24.

1 Clugas v. Panaluna, 4 T. R. 466.

2 Waymell v. Reed, 5 T. R. 599; Leake, 2d ed. 782. That there can be no action generally for the price of smuggled goods, see Condon v. Walker, 1 Yeates, 483.

3 Supra, sec 393; Holman v. Johnson, Cowp. 341; Pellecat v. Angell, 2 C. M. & R. 311.

4 Drexler v. Tyrrell, 15 Nev. 115. In Patrick v. Littell, 36 Oh. St. 79, a loan of money was to be secured by a conveyance of real estate in fee to the lender, with a lease back for a specified number of years, with a privilege of redemption to the lessees at the expiration of the term, the lessees to pay a ground rent equal to eight per cent, per annum on the money loaned. It was held that such security is in equity a mortgage and subject to taxation under the statute, and that a promise to a third party to pay for services to be rendered in obtaining a loan to be thus secured, is not void as contrary to public policy, although the object of the lender of the money in adopting such form of security was to evade taxation upon the investment. Boynton, J., said: "As respects this objection, whatever might be the effect of the transaction, if the person from whom the money had been procured were seeking to enforce the provisions of the agreement, - with which point we are not now concerned, - the relation of the defendants in error to the transaction, or to the form of the security to be given for the money borrowed, was not such, in our judgment, as to defeat their right to compensation for the services rendered, or the money advanced. They were constituted agents to procure a loan, upon terms prescribed by the plaintiff and her husband. The written request to procure the same explicitly defined the form of the security the defendants were directed to adopt. It was in pursuance of these directions that the services were rendered and the money paid for the examination of the title to the.