What the law forbids to be done directly cannot be made lawful by doing it indirectly.28 Where a bank, for instance, which was itself prohibited from entering into a particular transaction, procured its manager to appear in the transaction for its benefit, it was held that the transaction was unlawful, "upon the principle that whatever is prohibited by law to be done directly cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance." 29
23Cope v. Rowlands, 2 Mees. & W. 149; Cundell v. Dawson, 4 G. B. 376; Griffith v. Wells, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 226; Seidenbender v. Charles' Adm'rs, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 151, 8 Am. Dec. 6S2; Penn v. Bornman, 102 I11. 523; Bisbee v. McAllen, 39 Minn. 143, 39 N. W. 299; Smith v. Robertson (Ky.) 50 S. W. 852, 45 L. R. A. 510; Victorian Daylesford Syndicate v. Dott, 74 Law J. Ch. 673,  2 Ch. 624, 93 Law T. 627, 21 Times Law R. 742. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 101; Cent. Dig. § 479.
24Brown v. Duncan, 10 Barn. & C. 93; Larned v. Andrews, 106 Mass. 435, 8 Am. Rep. 346; Corning v. Abbott, 54 N. H. 469; Aiken v. Blaisdell, 41 Vt. 655; Ruckman v. Bergholz, 37 N. J. Law, 437; Rahter v. First Nat. Bank, 92 Pa. 393; Mandlebaum v. Gregovich, 17 Nev. 87, 28 Pac. 121, 45 Am. Rep. 433; Vermont Loan & Trust Co. v. Hoffman, 5 Idaho, 376, 49 Pac. 314, 37 L. R. A. 509, 95 Am. St. Rep. 186. See "Contracts," Deo. Dig. (Key-No.) § 101; Cent. Dig. § 479.
25 See Cope v. Rowlands, 2 Mees. & W. 149; Territt v. Bartlett, 21 Vt. 184; Aiken v. Blaisdell, 41 Vt 655. See "Contracts" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 107; Cent. Dig. § 419.
26 Ritchie v. Smith, 6 C. B. 462; Anson, Cont. (8th Ed.) 185; Smith v. Robertson, 106 Ky. 472, 50 S. W. 852, 45 L. R. A. 510. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 107; Cent. Dig. § 479.
27 Pol. Cont. (3d Ed.) 271; Sussex Peerage Case, 11 Clark & F. 148, 149. See, also, Union Nat. Bank v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co., 145 I11. 208, 34 N. E. 135; Johnson v. Berry, 20 S. D. 133, 104 N. W. 1114, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1159. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 106; Cent. Dig. § 477.
28Booth v. Bank of England, 7 Clark & F. 509, 540; Bank of U. S. v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 536, 7 L. Ed. 508; Wells v. People, 71 I11. 532. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 105; Cent. Dig. §§ 468-497.
29 Booth v. Bank of England, supra. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) | 105; Cent. Dig. §§ 468-497.
So, where the charter of a bank forbade the taking of a greater rate of interest than 6 per cent., but did not say that an agreement should be void in which such interest was taken, the supreme court of the United States held that a transaction by which the bank discounted a note at more than 6 per cent, was void, though the charter did not expressly prohibit an "agreement" to take higher interest, but spoke only of "taking," not of "reserving," interest. The court said: "A fraud upon a statute is a violation of the statute. * * It cannot be permitted by law to stipulate for the reservation of that which it is not permitted to receive. In those instances in which courts are called upon to inflict a penalty * * * it is necessarily otherwise; for then the actual receipt is generally necessary to consummate the offense; but, when the restrictive policy of a law alone is in contemplation, we hold it to be an universal rule that it is unlawful to contract to do that which it is unlawful to do." 30
An agreement forbidden by statute may be saved from being void by the statute itself. Where a statute forbids an agreement, but says that, if made, it shall not be void, then, if made, it is a contract which the courts must enforce.31
Where no penalty is imposed, and the intention of the legislature appears to be simply that the agreement is not to be enforced, neither the agreement itself nor its performance is to be treated as unlawful for any other purpose."
153. Among the statutes prohibiting agreements, the following may be mentioned as the most important:
(a) Statutes regulating the conduct of a particular trade, business, or profession, or regulating dealings in particular articles of commerce.
(b) Statutes regulating the traffic in intoxicating liquors.
(c) Statutes prohibiting labor, business, etc., on Sunday.
30 Bank of U. S. v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 7 L. Ed. 508. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 105; Cent. Dig. §§ 1,68-497.
31 Lewis v. Bright, 4 El. & BL 917. See "Contracts;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 105; Cent. Dig. §§ 468-497.
32 Post, p. 419.
(d) Statutes prohibiting the taking of usury.
(e) Statutes prohibiting gaming and wagers. This head includes statutes prohibiting the buying and selling of stocks or commodities for future delivery, where the parties intend, not an actual delivery, but a settlement by paying the difference between the market and the contract price.93
(f) Statutes prohibiting lotteries.