There are numerous statutes in all of the states, enacted for the purpose of protecting the public in dealing with certain classes of traders or professional men, and with certain articles of commerce. Protection to the public is generally the object of these statutes, and they are construed as prohibiting contracts entered into without having complied with the prescribed conditions. Asfalling within this class may be mentioned statutes imposing a penalty on dealers who fail to have the weights, measures, or scales used by them approved and sealed by the proper officer. Such a statute is for the protection of the public against fraud and imposition, and amounts to a prohibition of sales in measures or by weights or scales not sealed, so that a dealer who has made such a sale cannot recover the price.84

Falling within this class are also statutes requiring professional men, such as lawyers, physicians and surgeons, and others, to procure a license, certificate, or diploma as a condition precedent to the right to engage in the practice of their profession. These statutes are intended to protect the public against incompetent and unqualified practitioners, and a person coming within the statute cannot recover for his services if he has not complied with its provisions.35

33 Independently of statute, wagers on subjects in which the parties have no interest are, in this country, generally held illegal, as being contrary to public policy. Post, p. 342.

34 Miller v. Post, 1 Allen (Mass.) 434; Bisbee v. McAllen, 39 Minn. 143, 39 N. W. 299; Finch v. Barclay, 87 Ga. 393, 13 S. B. 566; Eaton v. Regan, 114 Mass. 433. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 105; Cent. Dig. § 491.

35 Lawyers. Hall t. Bishop, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 109; Ames v. Gilman, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 239; Hittson v. Brown, 3 Colo. 304. But see Yates v. Robertson, 80 Va. 475; Harland v. Lilienthal, 53 N. Y. 438. Physicians and surgeons. Bailey v. Mogg, 4 Denio (N. 0 60; Alcott v. Barber, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 520; Orr v. Meek, 111 Ind. 40, 11 N. E. 787; Coyle v. Campbell, 10 Ga. 570; Puck-ett v. Alexander, 102 N. C. 95, 8 S. E. 707, 3 L. R. A. 43; Davidson v. Bohl-man, 37 Mo. App. 576; Richardson v. Dorman, 28 Ala. 679; Jordan v. Dayton, 4 Ohio, 295; Underwood v. Scott, 43 Kan. 714, 23 Pac. 942; Holmes v. Halde, 74 Me. 28, 43 Am. Rep. 567; Dow v. Haley, 30 N. J. Law, 354; Adams v. Stewart, 5 Har. (Del.) 144; Ha worth v. Montgomery, 91 Tenn. 16, 18 S. W.

There are also, in most of the states, statutes regulating dealings with certain articles of commerce. They are designed either for the protection of the public against fraud or imposition from the sale of a spurious article, or for the protection of the public health against adulterated articles of food, or dangerous substances, such as powder and poisons.36 Sales of fertilizers, for instance, have been held illegal where the article was not inspected or labeled as required by statute.37

In many of the states there are statutes prohibiting the employment of young children in factories, and a contract for such employment would be illegal, so that a father could not recover for the services of a child so employed.88

But if a statute imposing a penalty for engaging in business without a license is enacted, not for the protection of the public, but for the purpose of raising revenue, it does not render void contracts made in violation thereof.39

399; Hargan v. Purdy, 93 Ky. 424, 20 S. W. 432; Roberts v. Levy (Cal.) 31 Pac. 570. Unlicensed real estate broker. Buckley v. Humason, 50 Minn. 195, 52 N. W. 385, 16 L. R. A. 423, 36 Am. St Rep. 637; Johnson v. Hulings, 103 Pa. 498, 49 Am. Rep. 131; Stevenson v. Ewing, 87 Tenn. 46, 9 S. W. 230. Unlicensed stockbroker. Cope v. Rowlands, 2 Mees. & W. 149; Hustis v. Pickards, 27 I11. App. 270. School teacher without certificate. Ryan v. School Dist, 27 Minn. 433, 8 N. W. 146; Wells v. People, 71 I11. 532. Unqualified conveyancer. Taylor v. Gas Co., 10 Exch. 293. Unlicensed plumber. Johnston v. Dahlgren, 31 App. Div. 204, 52 N. T. Supp. 555. Innkeeper. Randall v. Tuell, 89 Me. 443, 36 Atl. 910, 38 L. R. A. 143. Keeper of stallion. Smith v. Robertson, 106 Ky. 472, 50 S. W. 852; Nelson v. Beck, 89 Me. 264, 36 Atl. 374. See "Attorney and Client," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 186; Cent. Dig. § 298; "Physicians and Surgeons," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 22; Cent. Dig. § 51; "Brokers," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 42; Cent. Dig. § 1,3.

36 Sale of oleomargarine. Waterbury v. Egan, 3 Misc. Rep. 355, 23 N. Y. Supp. 115; Braun v. Really, 146 Pa. 519, 23 Atl. 389, 28 Am. St. Rep. 811. Sales by unregistered pharmacist in charge of drug store in violation of statute. Shattuck v. Watson, 164 Mich. 167, 129 N. W. 196. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 105; Cent. Dig. §§ 468-497.

37 McConnell v. Kitchens, 20 S. C. 430, 47 Am. Rep. 845; Conley v.' Sims, 71 Ga. 161; Johnston v. McConnell, 65 Ga. 129; Baker v. Burton (C. C.) 31 Fed. 401; Williams v. Barfield (C. C.) 31 Fed. 398; Campbell v. Segars, 81 Ala. 259, 1 South. 714; VANMETER v. SPURRIER, 94 Ky. 22, 21 S. W. 337, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 222. Contra, Niemeyer v. Wright, 75 Va. 239, 40 Am. Rep. 720. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 105; Cent. Dig. §§ 468-1,97.

ss Birkett v. Chatterton, 13 R. I. 299, 43 Am. Rep. 30. Under eight-hour law, making violation of act a misdemeanor, an employe cannot recover for overtime. Short v. Mining Co., 20 Utah, 20, 57 Pac. 720, 45 L. R. A. 603. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 105; Cent. Dig. §§ 468-1,97.

39 Sunflower Lumber Co. v. Turner Supply Co., 158 Ala. 191, 48 South. 510, 132 Am. St Rep. 20 [cit Clark on Contracts (1st Ed.) 385]. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 106; Cent. Dig. § 477.

Further illustrations of statutes within this class are referred to below.40