1 W. Bl. 517; Smyth v. Griffin, 14 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 28; Sismey v. Eley, 17 Sim. 1; Winebrinner v. Weiseger, 3 T.
B. Mon. 32, 36. C/. Doty v. Doty's Guardian, 118 Ky. 204, 80 S. W. 803, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 713. 97 Whaley v. Norton, 1 Vern. 483;
Gray v. Mathias, 5 Ves. 286; Nye v. Moseley, 6 B. & C. 133; Friend v. Harrison, 2 C. & P. 584; Ex parte Nader, L. R. 9 Ch. 670; Gay v. Parpart, 106 U. S. 679, 27 L. Ed. 256, 1 S. Ct. 456; Burgen v. Straughan, 7 J. J. Marsh. 583; Brown v. Kinsey, 81 N.
C. 245; Burton v. Belvin, 142 N. C. 151, 55 S. E. 71 (even though cohabitation continues); Wyant v. Leaner, 23 Pa. 338.
98 Supra, J148.
99 Walker v. Gregory, 36 Ala. 180; Sackstaeder v. Kast, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 1304, 105 S. W. 435.
1 Gjurich v. Fieg, 164 Oal. 429, 129 Pac. 464, Ann. Cas. 1916 B. Ill; Simpson v. Normond, 51 La. Ann. 1355, 26 So. 266; Brown v. Tuttle, 80 Me. 162, 13 Atl. 583; Vincent v. Moriarty, 31 N. Y. App. D. 484, 52 N. Y. S. 519. Cf. Sanders v. Ragan, 172 N. G.
612, 90 8. E. 777, L. R. A. 1917 B. 681.
2 In Fores v. Johnee, 4 Esp. 97, the court said: "For prints whose objects are general satire or ridicule of prevailing fashions or manners, I think the plaintiff may recover; but I cannot permit him to do so for such whose tendency is immoral or obscene; nor for such as are libels on individuals and for which the plaintiff might have been rendered criminally answerable for a libel." An agreement for the sale of an obscene book would doubtless fall within the same principle, but a contract for the sale of Voltaire's works was upheld in St. Hubert Guild v. Quinn, 64 N. Y. Misc. 336, 118 N. Y. S. 582.
3 One who contracts to print an obscene book cannot recover for his work in performing the contract. Poplett v. Stockdale, Ry. & Moo. 337, and the copyright of such a book will not be protected. Stockdale v. Onwhyn, 5 B. & C. 173; so of a libellous publication. Walcott v. Walker, 7 Ves. 1; Hime v. Dale, 2 Gamp. 27, n.
4 Infra, Sec. Sec. 1754, 1755.
matter in how decorous a manner conducted, was a criminal offence;5 and it necessarily follows that any contract involving such an attack would be unlawful. At the present time, however, the promotion of atheism or other religions than Christianity in decorous ways is not a crime;6 but a contract with such objects may, nevertheless, conceivably be opposed to public policy. It was so held in England in 1867,7 but at the present day it may be doubtful if this decision would be followed, and it is probable that so long as no other interference with rights and opinions of those holding more orthodox views is contemplated than is necessarily involved in an orderly discussion or advocacy of atheistic or heretical doctrines, & contract with such objects would be enforced.8
5See 4 Bl. Com. 41; 31 Harv. L. Rev. 289.
6 31 Harv. L. Rev. 291.
7 Cowan v. Milboum, L. R. 2 Exch. 230. A contract to let rooms for the delivery of lectures antagonistic to Christianity, was held unlawful and unenforceable. To the same effect is Pringle v. Napanee, 43 Up. Can. Q. B. 286. See also Zeisweiss v. James, 63 Pa. 466, 3 Am. Rep. 668.
9 In Bowman 9. Secular Society,  A. C. 406, a legacy to a society whose object was to promote the view that human conduct should be based on natural knowledge and not on supernatural belief was upheld. The court recognised that such a decision was inconsistent with Cowan v. Mil-bourn, stated in the preceding note, and overruled that case.