1042, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 774, 20 Ann. Cas. 614 (containing full discussion of rules). See "Contracts;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 2, 101; Cent. Dig. §§ 2, 41, 145, 455-460; "Sales," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 2; Cent. Dig. § 2; "Vendor and Purchaser, Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 2; Cent.. Dig. § 2.

62 Greenwood v. Curtis, 6 Mass. 377, 4 Am. Dec. 145; Grant v. McLachlin, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 34; Braun v. Keally, 146 Pa. 519, 23 Atl. 3S9, 28 Am. St Rep. 811; Brinker v. Scheunemann, 43 I11. App. 659; Dame v. Flint, 64 Vt. 533, 24 Atl. 1051; Claflin v. Meyer, 41 La. Ann. 1048, 7 South. 139; Kerwin v. Doran, 29 Mo. App. 397; Wagner v. Breed, 29 Neb. 720, 46 N. W. 286. See "Sales" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 2; Cent. Dig. § 2.

63 Brown v. Finance Co. (C. C.) 31 Fed. 516; Matthews v. Paine, 47 Ark. 54, 14 S. W. 463; Van Vleet v. Sledge (C. C.) 45 Fed. 743; Mott v. Rowland. 85 Mich. 561, 48 N. W. 638; Staples v. Nott, 128 N. T. 403. 28 N. E. 515, 26 Am. St. Rep. 480; Buchanan v. Bank, 55 Fed. 223, 5 C. C. A. 83. Note on gaming consideration valid where it was made and the transaction took place, is enforceable in a state under whose laws it would have been void. Sond-heim v. Gilbert, 117 Ind. 71, 18 N. E. 687, 5 L. R. A. 432, 10 Am. St. Rep. 23. Dealings in futures. Ward v. Vosburgh (C. C.) 31 Fed. 12; Lehman v. Feld, 37 Fed. 852. Sunday contract. McKee v. Jones, 67 Miss. 405, 7 South. 348; Arbuckle v. Reaume, 96 Mich. 243, 55 N. W. 808; Adams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358; Swann v. Swann (C. C.) 21 Fed. 299; Brown v. Browning, 15 R. I. 422. 7 Atl. 403, 2 Am. St. Rep. 908; O'Rourke v. O'Rourke, 43 Mich. 58, 4 N. W. 531. See "Usury," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 2; Cent. Dig. §§ 2-15, 418.

64 Com. v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458, 18 Am. Rep. 509; Sutton v. Warren, 10 Metc. (Mass.) 451; Scrimshire v. Scrimshire, 2 Hagg. Const. 395; Hderton v. Ilderton, 2 H. Bl. 145; Inhabitants of West Cambridge v. Inhabitants of Lexington, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 507, 11 Am. Dec. 231; Thorp v. Thorp, 90 N. Y. 602, 43 Am. Rep. 189; Jackson v. Jackson, 82 Md. 17, 33 Atl. 137, 34 L. R. A. 773. Cf. In re Stall's Estate, 183 Pa. 625, 39 Atl. 16, 39 L. R. A. 53!). 63 Am. St. Rep. 776; McLennan v. McLennan, 31 Or. 480, 50 Pac. 802, 38 L. R. A. 863, 65 Am. St Rep. 835. See "Marriage," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 2; Cent. Dig. §§ 3, 28.

65 Corn Exch. Nat Bank v. Jansen, 70 Neb. 579, 97 N. W. 814 (holding that suit may not be brought in foreign jurisdiction on instrument by which the contract is evidenced). See "Contracts" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 101; Cent. Dig. §§ 455-460.

66 Van Schaick v. Edwards. 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 855; Matthews v. Paine, 47 Ark. 54, 14 S. W. 463; Meroney v. Association, 112 N. C. 842, 17 S. E. 637. Note void for gaming in France, where it is made, is void in England.

CLABK Cont.(3d Kd.)-28

The rule that a contract which is valid where it is made and is to be performed is valid everywhere is subject to exceptions. No state is bound to recognize and enforce a contract which is injurious to its own interests, or to the interests of its citizens, or that contravenes the established public policy of the state.67 "This exception results from the consideration that the authority of the acts and contracts done in other states, as well as the laws by which they are regulated, are not, proprio vigore, of any efficacy beyond the territories of that state; and whatever effect is attributed to them elsewhere is from comity, and not of strict right. And every independent community will and ought to judge for itself how far that comity ought to extend. The reasonable limitation is that it shall not suffer prejudice by its comity. * * * Contracts, therefore, which are in evasion or fraud of the laws of a country, or of the rights or duties of its subjects; contracts against good morals, or against religion, or against public rights; and contracts opposed to the national policy or national institutions, - are deemed nullities in every country affected by such considerations, although they may be valid by the laws of the place where they are made." 68 To il-

Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burrows, 1077. And see, for other cases, Touro v. Cassia, 1 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 173, 9 Am. Dec. 680; Tolman Co. v. Reed, 115 Mich. 71, 72 N. W. 1104; Washington Nat. Building, Loan & Inv. Co. v. Stanley, 38 Or. 319, 63 Pac. 489, 58 L. R. A. 816, 84 Am. St. Rep. 793; Alexander v. Barker, 64 Kan. 396, 67 Pac. 829. Sale made in another state in violation of its liquor laws. Tredway v. Riley, 32 Neb. 495, 49 N. W. 268, 29 Am. St. Rep. 447; Wind v. Her, 93 Iowa, 316, 61 N. W. 1001, 27 L. R. A. 219. Stipulation relieving carrier from liability. Brockway v. Express Co., 168 Mass. 257, 47 N. E. 87. See "Bills and Notes," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 99; Cent. Dig. § 218; "Usury," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 2; Cent. Dig. §§ 2-15, 418.

67 Williamson v. Postal Telegraph Co., 151 N. C. 223, 65 S. E. 974, where it is said by Clark, C. J.: "To this rule, however, there are well-known exceptions, as follows: First, when the contract is contrary to good morals; second, when the state of the forum, or its citizens, would be injured by the enforcement by its courts of contracts of the kind in question; third, when the contract violates the positive legislation of the state of the forum, that is, contrary to its constitution or statute; and, fourth, when the contract violates the public policy of the state of the forum." And see Burrus v. Wit-cover, 158 N. C. 384, 74 S. E. 11, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1005, refusing to enforce a gambling contract made in another state and valid there. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 101; Cent. Dig. §§ 455-460.

68 Story Confl. Law, § 244; Randall v. Protective Union, 43 Neb. 876, 62 N. W. 252. And see Greenwood v. Curtis, 6 Mass. 358, 4 Am. Dec. 145; Davis v. Bronson, 6 Iowa, 410; Kentucky v. Bassford, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 526; Territt v. Bartlett, 21 Vt. 189; Blanchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 6, 7 Am. Dec 106; In re Dalpay, 41 Minn. 532, 43 N. W. 564, 6 L. R. A. 108, 16 Am. St. Rep. 729; Savings Bank of Kansas v. Bank (C. C.) 38 Fed. 800; Kilcrease v. Johnson, 85 Ga. 600, 11 S. E. 870; Armstrong v. Best, 112 N. C. 59, 17 S. E. 14, 25 L. R. A. 188, 34 Am. St Rep. 473. See, also, Oscanyan v. Arms Co., lustrate this exception, a contract made in one country to smuggle goods into another in violation of its laws will not be enforced in the latter country.69 So also a sale of intoxicating liquors or other goods in one state will not be enforced in another state, where the intention of both parties was to import the goods into the latter state, and sell them in violation of its laws.70 So of contracts made in a foreign country for future illicit cohabitation and prostitution; 71 and contracts made in another state or nation limiting the liability of common carriers 72 or other public service corporations,73 where such contracts are contrary to the public policy of the state of the forum.

An exception to the rule that contracts which are invalid where they are made are invalid everywhere is in the case of contracts violating the revenue laws. It seems to have been an established doctrine of the common law that a nation will not recognize or enforce the revenue laws of another country, and that the contracts of its own subjects, made to evade or defraud the revenue laws of foreign nations, may be enforced in its own courts.74 This doctrine has been deprecated by eminent judges and lawyers, and the later cases have shown a tendency to hold the contrary.76

103 U. S. 261, 26 L. Ed. 539. A contract made in another state, though valid there, will not be enforced if it is opposed to the public policy of the state of the foruin. The Kensington, 183 U. S. 263, 22 Sup. Ct. 102, 46 L. Ed. 190; Seamans v. Temple Co., 105 Mich. 400, 63 N. W. 40S, 28 L. R. A. 430, 55 Am. St Rep. 457; Thompson v. Taylor, 65 N. J. Law, 107, 46 Atl. 567; Bart-lett v. Collins. 109 Wis. 477, 85 N. W. 703, 83 Am. St. Rep. 928; Gooch v. Faucett, 122 N. C. 270, 29 S. E. 362, 39 L. R. A. 835; Winward v. Lincoln, 23 R. I. 476, 51 Atl. 106, 64 L. R. A. 160; Welling v. Association, 56 S. C. 280, 34 S. E. 409; Parker v. Moore, 115 Fed. 799, 53 C. C. A. 369; St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Mclntyre, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 399, 82 S. W. 346. But enforcement will not be refused merely because the contract would not have been valid if made in the state of the forum. Fonseca v. Steamship Co., 153 Mass. 553, 27 N. E. 665, 12 L. R. A. 340, 25 Am. St. Rep. 660; O'Regan v. Same, 160 Mass. 356, 35 N. E. 1070, 39 Am. St Rep. 484; International Harvester Co. of America v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 124 N. W. 1042, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 774, 20 Ann. Cas. 614; The Fri, 154 F. 333, 83 C. C. A. 205. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 101; Cent. Dig. §§ 455-460.

69 Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat 258, 6 L. Ed. 468; Holman v. Johnson, Cowp. 341. See, also, ante, p. 414. Bee "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 101; Cent. Dig. §§ 455-460.

70Aiken v. Blaisdell, 41 Vt 655; Banchor v. Mansel, 47 Me. 58;. Webster v. Munger, 8 Gray (Mass.) 584; Davis v. Bronson, 6 Iowa, 410. Or even in the state where the sale was made. GRAVES v. JOHNSON, 156 Mass. 211, 30 N. E. 818, 15 L. R. A. 834, 3 Am. St Rep. 446, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 294. See "Intoxicating Liquors," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 826; Cent. Dig. § 469.

71 Walker v. Perkins, 3 Burrows, 1568; Jones v. Randall, Cowp. 37; De Sobry v. De Laistre, 2 Har. & J. (Md.) at page 228, 3 Am. Dec. 535; Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burrows, 1084. Marriage valid where entered into, but incestuous in Pennsylvania, will not be there recognized. U. S. v. Rodgers (D. C.) 109 Fed. 886. See "Marriage," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 3; Cent. Dig. §§ 3, 23.

72 The Kensington, 183 U. S. 263, 22 Sup. Ct. 102, 46 L. Ed. 190; Carstens Packing Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 58 Wash. 239, 108 Pac. 613, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 975. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 101; Cent. Dig. §§ 455-460.

73 Williamson v. Postal Telegraph Co., 151 N. C. 223, 65 S. E. 974. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) | 101; Cent. Dig. §§ 455-460.

The rule stated at the beginning of this paragraph only applies, it will be noticed, where the contract is to be performed where it is made. Where it is either expressly or by implication to be performed at some other place, "there the general rule is in conformity to the presumed intention of the parties that the contract, as to its validity, * * * is to be governed by the law of the place of performance." 76