Future illicit cohabitation will not serve as consideration for a promise either of marriage,95 the support of a child,950 or of pecuniary advantage.96 The fact that past cohabi-

95 Hanks v. Naglee, 54 Calif. 51, 35 Am. Rep. 67; Boigneres v. Boulon, 54 Calif. 146; Edmonds v. Hughes, 115 Ky. 561, 74 S. W. 283; Steinfeld v. Levy, 16 Abb. Pr. (N. 8.) 26; Baldy v. Stratton, 11 Pa. St. 316,323; Goodall v, Thurman, 1 Head, 209; Burke v. Shaver, 92 Va. 345, 23 S. E. 749. But a prior valid contract to marry is not made unenforceable by illicit cohabitation. Henderson v. Spratlen, 44 Colo. 278, 98 Pac. 14, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 655; Kurtz v. Frank, 76 Ind. 594, 40 Am. Rep. 275.

95a Friend v. Harrison, 2 C. A P. 584; Trovinger v. McBurney, 5 Cow. 253; Randolph v. Stokes, 125 N. Y. App. D. 679, 110 N. Y. S. 20.

96 Walker v. Perkins, 3 Burr. 1568, tation is the motive for a promise will not invalidate it,97 though such cohabitation, is not in itself sufficient consideration.98 As a consideration partly illegal for an indivisible promise vitiates the whole promise, one who serves as housekeeper or servant under a contract of employment cannot recover on the contract if illicit cohabitation was contemplated and actually took place,99 and no quasi-contractual recovery can be had for the lawful services actually rendered under such an agreement.1 The sale or agreement to sell anything in itself immoral or obscene,2 or an agreement to manufacture anything of the kind,3 is invalid. How far knowledge that performance of an agreement, lawful in itself, will be used in an improper way, taints the agreement, is later considered.4