A contract though in itself neither unlawful in what it promises, nor in the consideration for the promise, may be obnoxious as part of a general scheme to bring about an unlawful result, or may be closely connected with some unlawful plan or act. There is no doubt that on the first assumption, the contract is unlawful. Where the contract is merely collaterally connected with an unlawful purpose or act, the rule generally adopted is that where the contract is only remotely connected with an unlawful transaction and rests upon an independent and legal consideration,, and the plaintiff can establish his case without relying upon the unlawful transaction, the contract is valid .Thus a contract of insurance is not invalidated by the tact that the property insured is used for an illegal purpose; 27

23 Peterson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 119 Wis. 197, 96 N. W. 632.

24 Calif. Civ. Code, Sec. 2774; Rogers v. Kneeland, 10 Wend. 218, 13 Wend. 114, N. Dak. Comp. L. (1913), 5 2774, Okla. Rev. L. (1910), Sec. 1076, S. Dak. C. C, Sec. 1961; Hunter v. Agee, 5 Humph. 67; Hall v. Huntoon, 17 Vt. 244, 44 Am. Dec. 332.

25 Shackell v. Rosier, 2 Bing. (N. C.) 634; Atkins v. Johnson, 43 Vt. 78, 6 Am. Rep. 260.

26 Hinds v. Chamberlin, 6 N. H. 226. See also Shackell v. Rosier, 2 Bing. (N. C.) 634; Lea v. Collins, 4 Sneed, 393; and supra, Sec. 1718. In Calif. Civ. Code, Sec. 2774, it is provided that such a contract is valid unless the act was a felony; and this provision is copied in N. Dak. Comp. L. (1913), Sec.6643; Okla. Rev. L. (1910), Sec. 1076; S. Dak. Civ. Code, Sec. 1961.

27 Conithan v. Royal Ins. Co., 91 Miss. 386, 46 So. 361, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 214, 124 Am. St. Rep. 701; Phenix Ins. Co. v. Clay, 101 Ga. 331, 28 S. E. 863; Loehner v. Home Mutual Ins. Co., 17 Mo. 247; Nebraska, etc., Ins. Co. v. Christiensen, 29 Neb. 572, 46 N. W. 924; Electrova Co. v. Spring Garden Ins. Co., 166 N. C. 232, 72 S. E. 306, 35 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 1216. See also Ocean Ins. Co. v. Polleys, 13 Pet. 157, 10 L. Ed. 105; Boardman v. Merrimack Ins. Co., 8 Cush. 683, where it was held that illegal registry of a as where a stock of liquor kept for unlawful sale is insured.28 It is under the same principle that where a surely who has paid a gambling debt has been given a note by the principal, the note may be enforced; 29 and the principle finds application under a variety of other circumstances.30 On tne other hand, vessel did not invalidate insurance thereon.

28 Mechanics' Ins. Co. 0. C. A. Hoover Distilling Co., 182 Fed. 690, 106 C. C. A. 128, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 873; Erb v. German-American Ins. Co., 98 Iowa, 006, 67 N. W. 683, 40 L. R. A. 845; Insurance Co. of North America v. Evans, 64 Kans. 770, 68 Pac. 623; Niagara Ins. Co. v. De Graff, 12 Mich. 124. But see contra, Kelly v. Home Ins. Co., 07 Mass. 288; Carri-gan 0. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co., 53 Vt. 418, 38 Am. Rep. 687.

29 Powell v. Smith, 66 N. C. 401. See also cases of money paid for gambling debts, supra, Sec. 1681.

30 The leading case is Armstrong 0. Toler, 11 Wheat. 258, 6 L. Ed. 468. See also Hanover Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 109 Fed. 421, 48 C. C. A. 482; Missouri Fidelity etc. Co. v. Art Metal etc. Co., 242 Fed. 630,155 C. C. A. 320; Ingersoll v. Campbell, 46 Ala. 282; Phillips v. Pine Bluff etc. R. Co. (Ark.), 208 S. W. 313; Hubbard 0. Mulligan, 13 Colo. App. 116, 57 Pac. 738; Warren v. Hewitt, 45 Ga. 501; Guilfoil v. Arthur, 158 111. 600,41 N. E. 1009; Martin v. Richardson, 94 Ky. 183, 21 S. W. 1039,19 L. R. A. 692, 42 Am. St. 353; Baker 0. Page, 11 Me. 381,26 Am. Dec. 540; Pelosi v. Bugbee. 217 Mass. 579, 105 N. E. 222; Qulgley v. Wolf, 177 Mich. 467,143 N. W. 882; Disbrow 0. Creamery Package Mfg. Co., 110 Minn. 237, 125 N. W. 115; Holt 0. Barton, 42 Miss. 711, 2 Am. Rep. 640; Owens v. Davenport, 39 Mont. 555, 104 Pac. 682, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 996; Gallagher v. Cornelius, 23 Mont. 27, 57 Pac. 447; Ballin v. Fourteenth St. Store, 123 N. Y. App. D.

582, 108 N. Y. S. 26,195 N. Y. 580, 89 N. E. 1095; Messersmith v. American Fidelity Co., 187 N. Y. App. D. 36,175 N. Y. S. 169; Owens 0. Wright, 161 N. C. 127, 76 S. E. 735, Ann. Gas. 1914, D; Wald 0. Wheelon, 27 N. Dak. 624,147 N. W. 402; Walters Nat. Bank 0. Bantock, 41 Okla. 153,137 Pac. 717; Patty 0. City Bank, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 475, 41 S. W. 173; Rousseau 0. Everett (Tex. Civ. App.), 209 S. W. 460; Dinkelspeel v. O'Day, 47 Utah, 18, 151 Pac. 344; Monahan v. Monahan, 77 Vt. 133, 59 AtL 169, 70 L. R. A. 935; Watson 0. Fletcher, 7 Gratt. 1. See also supra, Sec.Sec. 1661,1681.

In Missouri Fidelity, etc., Co. 0. Art Metal, etc., Co., 242 Fed. 630, 631,155 C. C. A. 320, the action was brought upon a bond given by the defendant to secure the second renewal of a note which was originally given for the price of goods sold in violation of a statute of Missouri, which forbids under a penalty of $1,000 a foreign corporation to do business in the State until it has filed with the secretary of state its articles of incorporation, and paid certain fees. The court said, citing Kansas City Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. National Surety Co., 167 Fed. 496, 93 C. C. A. 132; Mechanics' Ins. Co. v. C. A. Hoover Distilling Co., 182 Fed. 590,105 C. C. A. 128,31 L.R. A. (N. S.) 873; Hanover Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 109 Fed. 421,48 C. C. A. 482; Stewart v. Wright, 147 Fed. 321,77 C. C. A. 499; Dunlop 0. Mercer, 156 Fed. 545,86 C. C. A. 435; Jefferson v. Burhans, 85 Fed. 949, 29 C. C. A. 481: "We think this case falls within the rule first stated in Armstrong 0. Toler, 11 Wheat. 258,6 L. Ed. 468, and a contract which is directly connected with an unlawful transaction or plan will not be enforced.31