If a seller does anything beyond making the sale to aid the unlawful purpose of the purchaser, he cannot recover,44 A common application of these principles is in regard to leases mell v. Reed, 5 T. R. 599, where a seller who had packed goods for the purpose of facilitating smuggling was held debarred from recovering the price.
L. R. A. 432, 10 Am. St. Rep. 23; Jackson v. City Bank, 126 Ind. 347, 25 N. E. 430, 0 L. R. A. 657; Brunswick v. Valleau, 50 Iowa, 120, 32 Am. Rep. 119; Feineman v. Sachs, 33 Kans. 621, 7 Pac. 222, 52 Am. Rep. 547; Tyler v. Carlisle, 79 Me. 210, 9 Atl. 356, 1 Am. St. Rep. 301; Gambs v. Sutherland's Est., 101 Mich. 355, 59 N. W. 652; Chamberlin v. Fisher, 117 Mich. 428, 75 N. W. 931; Darling v. Kipp, 93 Neb. 781, 141 N. W. 830; Delavina v. Hill, 65 N. H. 94, 19 Atl. 1000; Bryson v. Haley, 68 N. H. 337, 38 Atl. 1006; Amey v. Granite State Ins. Co., 68 N. H. 446, 44 Atl. 601; Main v. Berlin Dry Goods Co., 75 N. H. 511, 77 Atl. 483; Brooklyn Distilling Co. v. Standard Distilling Co., 120 N. Y. App. 237, 105 N. Y. S. 264; Waugh v. Beck, 114 Pa. St. 422, 6 Atl. 923; Gaylord v. Soragen, 32 Vt. 110, 76 Am. Dec. 154. See also Corbin v. Wach-horst, 73 Cal. 411, 15 Pac. 22.
43 Ramsey v. Smith, 138 Ala. 333, 35 So. 325; Brunswick v. Valleau, 50 Iowa, 120, 32 Am. Rep. 119; Ely v. Webster, 102 Mass. 304; Adams v. Coulliard, 102 Mass. 167.
44 Kohn v. Melcher, 43 Fed. 641 (furnishing false invoices of liquor sold to deceive authorities); Feineman p. Sachs, 33 Kans. 621, 7 Pac. 222, 52 Am. Rep. 547 (packing liquor deceptively to aid the buyer's purpose); Commercial Sec. Co. v. Archer, 179 Ky. 842, 201 S. W. 479 (sale of prizes for "popularity contest" with instructions for fictitious voting to maintain public interest); Banchor v. Man-eel, 47 Me. 58 (taking precautions on behalf of the buyer against seizure of liquor sold); Foster v. Thurston, 11 Cush. 322 (giving the sale the appearance of being made to a third person); Store v. Finkleetein, 46 Neb. 577, 65 N. W. 195, 30 L. R. A. 644, 48 Neb. 27, 66 N. W. 1020 (participation in illegal purpose and profits); Skiff t. Johnson, 57 N. H. 475 (putting up and labelling goods in packages so that they might be conveniently used in illegal lottery scheme); Fisher v. Lord, 63 N. H. 514, 3 Atl. 927 (packing liquor so as to conceal its character); Hull v. Ruggles, 56 N. Y. 424 (putting up packages with tickets in them for .use in illegal lottery scheme); Arnot v. Pittston Coal Co., 68 N. Y. 558, 23 Am. Rep. 190 (agreeing not to make competitive sales, thereby aiding defendant's purpose to gain an illegal monopoly); Chimene v. Pennington (Tex. Civ. App.), 79 8. W. 63 (using materials sold in construction of combustible building within fire limits of a city in violation of law); Gaylord v. Soragen, 32 Yt. 110, 76 Am. Dec. 154 (marking casks of liquor with no name, but merely a diamond inclosing a letter S, in order to prevent seizure); Aiken v. Blaisdell, 41 Vt. 655 (marking kegs of liquor "benzine" or "cider vinegar," and packing them in barrels or boxes). See also Biggs v. Lawrence, 3 T. R. 454; Glugas v. Penaluna, 4 T. R. 466; Wayand sales to proprietors of houses of prostitution,45 and also in regard to money lent for gambling,46 or other illegal purpose.
45 See Hollenberg Music Co. v. Berry, 85 Ark. 9, 106 S. W. 1172 (seller of piano recovered price, though he knew the character of the place where it was to be used); Belmont v. Jones House Furnishing Co., 94 Ark. 96, 125 8. W. 651, 140 Am. St. Rep. 112 (to the same effect); Ashford v. Mace, 103 Ark. 114, 146 S. W. 474, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1104 (lessor's knowledge of lessee's intent to sublet for immoral purposes did not make original lease void); Ramsey v. Smith, 138 Ala. 333 (knowledge of buyer's illegal purpose apparently regarded as sufficient to prevent conditional seller or his assignee with notice recovering piano on buyer's default); Postelle v. Rivers, 112 Ga. 850, 38 S. E. 109 (recovery not allowed for board and lodging furnished to defendant to maintain her in a life of prostitution); Hubbard v. Moore, 24 La. Ann. 591, 13 Am. Rep. 128 (seller of furniture, knowing the character of the place where it was to be used, recovered the price); Sampson v. Townsend, 25 La. Ann. 78 (to the same effect, though the plea alleged the seller delivered and put up the furniture for the express purpose of enabling the defendant to fit up her house); Mahood v. Tealza, 26 La. Ann. 108 (to the same effect as Hubbard v. Moore, supra); McDonald v. Born, 135 Mich. 177, 97 N. W. 693 (money paid to enable defendant to conduct her illegal business cannot be recovered); Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assn. v. Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N. W. 558, 9 L. R. A. 506 (seller of beer sold with knowledge of the character of the place where it was to be used recovered the price); Sprague v. Rooney, 82 Mo. 493, 52 Am. Rep. 383, 104 Mo. 349,16 S. W. 505 (specific performance of agreement in form a sale 'with monthly payments denied, it appearing that transaction was so made to evade statute forbidding leases of premises for houses of prostitution); Ernst v. Crosby, 140 N. Y. 364, 35 N. E. 603 (lessor of premises which he knows or intends shall be used for unlawful purposes cannot recover rent); Bishop v. Honey, 34 Tex. 245 (mechanic's lien may be enforced against premises which lienor knew when taking part in building them were to be used for immoral purposes); Reed v. Brewer, 90 Tex. 144, 37 S. W. 418 (the plaintiff was not allowed to recover the price for furniture supplied on a conditional sale to the keeper of a brothel, the court inferring from the large credit given and instalment payments provided for that the plaintiff must have expected the price to be realised from the immoral business. The court declined to express an opinion whether mere knowledge by the plaintiff of the defendant's unlawful purpose would have precluded recovery. It was further held that the fact that the notes in suit were not those originally given for the price, but were new notes given to compromise suits brought on the original notes did not help the plaintiff. The original illegality tainted the whole transaction); Hunstock v. Palmer, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 459, 23 S. W. 294 (rent of premises known by the landlord to be used for immoral purposes cannot be recovered); Levy v. Davis, 115 Va. 814, 80 S. E. 791 (seller of furniture not allowed to reclaim it or recover the price); Washington Liquor Co. v.
46 See supra, Sec. 1681.
Mere knowledge of a borrower's illegal purpose will not deprive a lender of his right to recover money lent; 47 but if the lender participates in the illegal use of the money lent, he cannot recover,48