Since aiding an unlawful purpose is itself unlawful,84 if money is lent for the purpose of being used in gambling it cannot be recovered.85 While (since mere knowledge that illegal use is to be made of money or property does not make a transfer of it unlawful at least in the United States),86 the fact without more that the lender knew that money lent by him was to be thus used will not defeat recovery.87 Where goods are sold to a particular person or persons, the fact that the seller knows that the buyers and others are to make the ultimate liability to pay the price, as between one another, depend upon a wager, will not preclude him from recovering from those with whom he contracted.88 A loan of money for the purpose of discharging a gambling debt already incurred is also enforceable.89 But

209, 41 Atl. 918; Ruckman v. Pitcher, 1 N. Y. 392, 20 N. Y. 9; Kohler v. Rosenthal, 136 N. Y. App. Div. 438, 120 N. Y. S. 325; Columbia Bank v. Haldeman, 7 W. & S. 233, 42 Am. Dec. 229; Harnden v. Melby, 90 Wis. 5, 62 N. W. 536.

78 Trenery v. Goudie, 106 Iowa, 693, 77 N. W. 467. See also Maher v. Van Horn, 15 Colo. App. 14, 60 Pac. 949. 'But see Pabst Brewing Co. v. Liston, 80 Minn. 473, 83 N. W. 448; and infra, n. 82, 83.

79 McLain v. Huffman, 30 Ark. 428; Hayden v. Little, 35 Mo. 418; Bunn v. Riker, 4 Johns. 426, 4 Am. Dec. 292; Rust v. Gott, 9 Cow. 169, 18 Am. Dec. 497; Doran v. Chambers, 20 Nova Scotia, 309. Cf. Dee v. Sears-Nattinger Automobile Co., 141 Iowa, 610,118 N. W. 529.

80 Lewis v. Bruton, 74 Ala. 317, 49 Am. Rep. 816.

81 McKee v. Manice, 11 Cush. 357; Love v. Harvey, 114 Mass. 80.

82 Okeraon v. Crittenden, 62 Iowa, 297, 17 N. W. 528; Patterson v. Clark, 126 Mass. 531.

83 Hale v. Sherwood, 40 Conn. 332, 16 Am. Rep. 37; Perkins v. Hyde, 6 Yerg. 288. See also Shoolbred v, Roberts, [1899] 2 Q. B. 560, '1900] 2 Q. B. 497,

84 See infra, Sec. 1750.

85McKinnell v. Robinson, 3 M. A W. 434; Hay v. Ayling, 16 Q. B. 423; Saffery v. Mayer, [1900] 1 K. B. 11; Maiden v. Phillips, 103 Fed. 196; Singleton v. Bank of Monticello, 113 Ga. 527, 38 S. . 947; Camas Prairie State Bank v. Newman, 15 Ida. 719, 99 Pac. 833, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 703, 128 Am. St. Rep. 81; Scott v. Baker, 143 111. App. 151; Blank v. Jackson, 128 Ind. 424, 26 N. E. 568, 27 N. E. 1117; McDevitt v. Thomas, 130 Ky. 805, 114 S. W. 273; Emerson v. Townsend, 73 Md. 224, 20 Atl. 984; Lancaster v. Ames, 103 Me. 87, 68 Atl. 533, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 229, 125 Am. St. Rep. 286; Spies v. Rosenstock, 87 Md. 14, 39 Atl. 268; Gibney v. Olivette, 196 Mass. 294, 82 N. E. 41; Cutler v. Welsh, 43 N. H. 497; Appleton v. Maxwell, 10 N. Mex. 748, 65 Pac. 158.

55 L. R. A. 93; Peck v. Briggs, 3 Denio, 107; Ruckman v. Bryan, 3 Denio, 340; Freedley v. Jacoby, 220 Pa. 609, 69 Atl. 1047; Mordecai v. Dawkins, 9 Rich. L. 262; Bates v: Watson, 1 Sneed, 376; Jones v. Aken (Tex. Civ. App.), 80 S. W. 385; Catton v. Catton, 69 Wash. 130, 124 Pac. 387, 389. See also Lee v. Boyd, 86 Ala. 283, 5 So. 489. But money lent in a foreign country for the purpose of being used by the borrower for gaming, the game not being illegal by the law of that country, may be recovered in the English courts. Saxby v. Fulton, [1909] 2 K. B. 208. It is probable that in America where wagers are held illegal at common law, a different conclusion would be reached. Burrus v. Witcover, 158 N. C. 384, 74 S. E. 11, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1005.

86 See infra, Sec. 1764.

87 Allen v. Caldwell, 149 Ala. 293, 42 So. 855; Corbin v. Wachhorst, 73 Cal. 411, 15 Pac. 22; Singleton v. Monticello Bank, 113 Ga. 527, 38 S. E. 947; Jackson v. City Nat. Bank, 125 Ind. 347, 25 N. E. 430, 9 L. R. A. 657; Plank v. Jackson, 128 Ind. 424, 26 N. E. 568, 27 N. E. 1117; Cooley v. Allen, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 982, 90 S. W. 1048; Tyler v. Carlisle, 79 Me. 210, 9 Atl. 356, 1 Am. St. Rep. 301* White v. Buss, 3 Cush. 448; Kipp v. Welsh (Minn.), 170 N. W. 222, 224; Waugh v. Beck, 114 Pa. 422, 6 Atl. 923, 60 Am. Rep. 354; Cleveland v. Taylor,

49 Tex. Civ. App. 496, 108 S. W. 1037; Gaylord v. Soragen, 32 Vt. 110, 76 Am. Dec. 154; Kinney v. Hynds, 7 Wyo. 22, 49 Pac. 403, 52 Pac. 1081; Venne v. Christin, Rap. Jud. Quebec, 16 Cour Sup. 164. See also Futch v. Sanger (Tex. Civ. App.), 163 S. W. 597. But see Scott v. Baker, 143 111. App. 151; Camas Prairie State Bank v. Newman, 15 Idaho, 719, 724, 99 Pac. 833, 128 Am. St. Rep. 81, 84.

88Winchester v. Nutter, 52 N. H. 507, 13 Am. Rep. 93.

89 Oulds v. Harrison, 10 Ex. 572; Re O'shea, [1911] 2 K. B. 981; Round-tree v. Smith, 108 U. S. 269, 276, 27 L. Ed. 722, 2 Sup. Ct. 630; Armstrong v. American, etc., Bank, 133 U. S. 433, 469, 33 L. Ed. 747, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 450; Lehman v. Strass-berger, 2 Woods, 554, 563; Sampson v. Camperdown Mills, 82 Fed. 832, 837; White v. Yarbrough, 16 Ala. 109; Roberts o. Blair, 11 Colo. 64, 16 Pac. 717; Brooks v. Brady, 53 111. App. 155; Finkel v. Springer, 198 111. App. 483; Bower v. Webber, 69 Iowa, 286, 28 N. W. 600; English v. Young, 10 B. Mon. 141; Wyman v. Fiske, 3 Allen (Mass.) 238, 80 Am. Dec. 66; Williams v. Carr, 80 N. C. 294; Ballard v. Green, 118 N. C. 390, 24 S. E. 777; Marshall v. Thruston, 3 Lea, 740; Boggess v. Lilly, 18 Tex. 200; Erake v. Alexander, 86 Va. 206, 9 S. E. 991; Hurlburt v. Straub, 54 W. Va. 303, 46 S..E. 163. But see Cannanv. Bryoe, 3 one who is employed to make wagers and to pay any losses which may be incurred, and who does thus incur and pay losses on behalf of his principal cannot recover them from him.90

Therefore, a broker who negotiates for his principal a trans-action held to be a gambling contract can recover from his principal neither for commissions nor advances.91 If, however, the broker was ignorant of the facts or intent making the contract of his principal illegal, he may recover.92 One who has made a contract in furtherance of wagering transactions is not only denied a right to enforce it, but is freed from liability for breach of it, A telegraph company though under contract to furnish market quotations to the proprietor of a bucket shop may refuse to do so.93 The proprietor of a gambling house is not liable for breaking a contract of employment with one whom he has engaged as manager of it.94

B. & Ald 179; Tatam v. Reeve, [1803] 1 Q. B. 44; ScoUans v. Flynn, 120 Mass. 271.

90 Saffery v. Mayer, [1901] 1 K. B. 11. See also St. Croix v. Morris, 1 Cab. & El. 486; White v. Wilson's Adm., 100 Ky. 367, 38 S. W. 495, 37 L. R. A. 197; Central Trust etc. Co. v. Respass, 112 Ey. 606, 66 S. W. 421, 56 L. R A. 479, 99 Am. St. 317; Schoenberg v. Adler, 105 Wis. 645, 81 N. W. 1055. Cf. Hill v. Fox, 4 Hurlst. & N. 359.

91 Irwin v. Williar, 110 U. S. 499, 28 L. Ed. 225, 4 Sup. Ct. 160; Embrey v. Jemison, 131 U. S. 336, 33 L. Ed. 172, 9 Sup. Ct. 776; Bailey v. Phillips, 159 Fed. 535; Phelps v. Holderness,

56 Ark. 300, 19 S. W. 921; Cashman v. Root, 89 Cal. 373, 26 Pac. 883, 12 L. R. A. 511, 23 Am. St. Rep. 482; Anderson v. Holbrook, 128 Ga. 233,

57 S. E. 500, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 575; Calumet Grain & E. Co. v. Williams, 97 111. App. 36; Orthwein-Matchette Inv. Co. v. McFarlin, 93 Kan. 526, 144 Pac. 842; Stewart v. Schall, 65 Md. 289, 4 Atl. 399, 57 Am. Rep. 327; Cover v. Smith, 82 Md. 586, 34 Atl. 465; Harvey v. Merrill, 150 Mass. 1, 22 N. E. 49, 5 L. R. A. 200, 15 Am. St. Rep. 159; Beers v. Wardwell, 198 Mass. 236, 84 N. E. 306; Mohr v. Miesen, 47 Minn. 228, 49 N. W. 862; Crawford v. Spencer, 92 Mo. 498, 4 S. W. 713, 1 Am. St. Rep. 745; Saunders v. Baker, 122 Mo. App. 294, 99 a W. 51; Rogers v. Marriott, 59 Neb. 759, 82 N. W. 21; Sunderland v. Hibbard, 97

Neb. 21, 149 N. W. 57; Dow* v. Glas-pel, 4 N. Dak. 251, 60 N. W. 60; Lester v. Buel, 49 Ohio St. 240, 30 N. E. 821, 34 Am. St. Rep. 556; Riordan v. Doty, 50 S. C. 537, 27 S. E. 939; Kassuba Commission Co. v. Blodgett, 155 Wis. 529, 143 N. W. 1060; Snoddy v. American Nat. Bank, 88 Tenn. 573, 13 S. W. 127, 7 L. R. A. 705, 17 Am. St. Rep. 918. But see Hawley v. Bibb, 69 Ala. 52; Pedt v. Hatcher, 112 Ala. 514, 57 Am. St. Rep. 45; Jones v. Ames, 135 Mass. 431. In Warren v. Hewitt, 45 Ga. 501, it was held that if the principal subsequently executes his note or bill, or makes an express promise to pay the broker, or with full knowledge of the facts allows the transaction to proceed, he becomes liable. See also Peet v. Hatcher, 112 Ala. 514, 57 Am. St. Rep. 45. The notion of making enforceable by ratification a transaction originally unenforceable because obnoxious to public policy is, however, indefensible, and Warren v. Hewitt was overruled by Anderson v. Holbrook, 128 Ga. 233, 57 S. E. 500, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 575. See also Pelouze v.'felaughter, 241 111. 215, 89 N. E. 259; Moore v. Blanck, 71 N. Y. Misc. 257, 129 N. Y. S. 1105.

92Boyd v. Hanson, 41 Fed. 174; Ponder v. Jerome Hill Cotton Co., 100 Fed. 373, 40 C. C. A. 416; Parker v. Moore, 115 Fed. 799,53 C. C. A. 369; Rumsey v. Berry, 65 Me. 570; Jones v. Ames, 135 Mass. 431; Gayiord v. Duryea, 95 Mo. App. 574, 69 S. W. 607.