An agreement which is illegal and void at the time of its inception cannot be rendered valid by subsequent legislation;77 nor, on the other hand, can a change of the law render invalid a contract which was valid when made.78 Where, however, performance of a contract lawful in its inception is made unlawful by any subsequent legislation or event, the contract is thereby dissolved, unless the statute, to have this effect, would be unconstitutional, as impairing the obligation of contract.79 So a covenant not to do a lawful thing is repealed by the subsequent passage of a statute compelling it to be done.80

74 Story, Confl. Law, §§ 245, 256, 257; Boucher v. Lawson, Cas. t. Hardw. 84, 89, 191; Holman v. Johnson, Cowp. 341; Ludlow v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. (N. T.) 94. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 511, 512; Cent. Dig. § 1482; "Contracts;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 101; Cent. Dig. §§ 455-460.

75 Story, Confl. Law, §§ 245, 256, 257. A bill or note void for want of a stamp is void everywhere, though, if the stamp is merely a condition of its admissibility in evidence, this will have no effect outside the jurisdiction. Alves v. Hodgson, 7 T. R. 241; Bristow v. Sequeville, 5 Ex. 275; Fant v. Miller, 17 Grat. (Va.) 47. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 101; Cent. Dig. §§ 455-460.

76 Story, Confl. Law, § 280; Andrews v. Pond, 13 Pet. 65, 10 L. Ed. 61; Frazier v. Warfleld, 9 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 220; Thayer v. Elliott, 16 N. H. 104; First Nat.. Bank v. Hall (Pa.) 24 Atl. 665, 30 Am. St. Rep. 823; Liverpool & G. W. Steam Co. v. Insurance Co., 129 TJ. S. 397, 9 Sup. Ct. 4G9, 32 L. Ed. 788. That a note is governed by the law of the place where it is payable, see Stevens v. Gregg, 89 U. 461, 12 S. W. 775; Tenant v. Tenant, 110 Pa. 478, 1 Atl. 532; Barrett v. Dodge, 16 R. I. 740, 19 Atl. 530, 27 Am. St. Rep. 777; Bigelow v. Burnham, 83 Iowa, 120, 49 N. W. 104, 32 Am. St. Rep. 294; Bennett v. Eastern Building & Loan Ass'n, 177 Pa. 233, 35 Atl. 684, 34 L. R. A. 595, 55 Am. St Rep. 723; Building & Loan Ass'n of Dakota v. Logan, 66 Fed. 827, 14 C. C. A. 133; Hieronymus v. Association (C. C.) 101 Fed. 12; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill, 163 Ala. 18, 50 South. 248, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 648, 19 Ann. Cas. 1058; Southern Express Co. v. Gibbs, 155 Ala. 303, 46 South. 465, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874, 130 Am. St Rep. 24 [cit Clark on Contracts (1st Ed.) 507]; Zeratello v. Hammerstein, 231 Pa. 56, 79 Atl. 922. Contract to be performed partly in state where made and partly elsewhere. Bartlett v. Collins, 109 Wis. 477, 85 N. W. 703, 83 Am. St Rep. 928. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 101; Cent. Dig. §§ 455-460.

77 HANDY v. ST. PAUL GLOBE PUB. CO., 41 Minn. 188, 42 N. W. 872. 4 L. R. A. 466, 16 Am. St Rep. 695, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 227;

Puckett v. Alexander, 102 N. C. 95, 8 S. E. 767, 3 L. R. A. 43; Mays v. Williams, 27 Ala. 267. Repeal of law does not validate prior invalid contract. Hathaway v. Moran, 44 Me. 67; Hughes v. Boone, 102 N. C. 137, 9 S. E. 286; Robinson v. Barrows. 48 Me. 186; Banchor v. Mansel, 47 Me. 58; Webber v. Howe, 36 Mich. 150, 24 Am. Rep. 590; Anding v. Levy, 57-Miss. 51, S4 Am. Rep. 435; Gilliland v. Phillips, 1 S. C. 152; Bailey v. Mogg, 4 Denio (N. Y.) 60; Ottaway v. Lowden, 55 App. Div. 410, 66 N. Y. Supp. 952; Denning v. Yount, 62 Kan. 217, 61 Pac. 803, 50 L. R. A. 103; Wilcox v. Edwards, 162 Cal. 455, 123 Pac. 276, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1392 (where, however, it is said that statutes changing the law relating to usury seem to constitute an exception to this rule). Otherwise where contract merely voidable and not void. Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U. S. 143, 2 Sup. Ct. 408, 27 L. Ed. 682. And see Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Railway Co. (C. C.) 62 Fed. 904. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 105; Cent. Dig. §§ 1,80-1,82.

78oyce v. Tabb. 18 Wall. 546, 21 L. Ed. 757; Jump v. Johnson (Ky.) 13 S. W. 843; Richardson v. Campbell, 34 Neb. 181, 51 N. W. 753, 33 Am. St. Rep. 633; Knigbt v. Lee, [1893] 1 Q. B. 41; Stephens v. Railway Co., 109 Cal. 86, 41 Pac. 783, 29 L. R. A. 751, 50 Am. St. Rep. 17. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Keg-No.) § 105; Cent. Dig. §§ 1,80-1,82.

79 United States v. Dietrich (C. C.) 126 Fed. 671 [cit. Clark on Contracts (1st Ed.) 507]; American Mercantile Exchange v. Blunt, 102 Me. 128, 66 Atl. 212, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 414, 120 Am. St Rep. 463, 10 Ann. Cas. 1022. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 105; Cent. Dig. §§ 480-482.

80 Meade v. Lamarche, 150 App. Div. 42, 134 N. Y. Supp. 479. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 105; Cent. Dig. (§ 480-1,82.