No distinction is now made between things which are merely mala prohibita and things which are mala in 9e. Courts cannot go behind the legislative prohibition when the prohibition itself is clear.71 But in determining what validity, if any, a forbidden contract has, it is often important to consider how far and for what reason the prohibited transaction is wrongful, since the courts will endeavor so to deal with the transaction as to give effect to the fundamental purpose of the Legislature and to a wise public policy.72

Rep. 145; Durgin v. Dyer, 08 Me. 143; Roby v. West, 4 N. H. 286, 17 Am. Dec. 423; Bracket v. Hoyt, 29 N. EL 264; Gregory v. Wilson, 36 N. J. L. 315, 13 Am. Rep. 448; Covington v. Threadgill, 88 N. C. 186; Bloom v. Richards, 2 Ohio St. 387, 395; Pennsylvania Co. v. Wentz, 37 Ohio St. 333, 338; McConnell v. Kitchens, 20 S. C. 430; Elkins v. Parkhurst, 17 Vt. 105; Bancroft v. Dumas, 21 Vt. 456.

70 In Norbeck & N. Co. v. State, 32 S. Dak. 189, 142 N. W. 847, 849, the court said: "A contract founded on a statute making an act penal is void, although the statute does not pronounce it void or expressly prohibit it. A contract that is declared and pronounced to be null and void by express law is just as null and void as if made penal. The effect on the contract is the same in either case. Berka v. Woodward, 125 Cal. 119, 57 Pac. 777, 45 L. R. A. 420, 73 Am. St. Rep. 31; Brooks v. Cooper, 50 N. J. Eq. 761, 26 Atl. 978, 21 L. R. A. 617, 35 Am. St. Rep. 793; Seidenbender v. Charles, 4 Serg. & R. 151, 8 Am. Dec. 682."

In Dodson v. McCurnin, 178 Iowa, 1211, 160 N. W. 927, 929, L. R. A. 1917 C. 1084, the court said: "It is not necessary that a prohibited evil should be made criminal or even penalised to vitiate contracts made in furtherance of that evil. Jemison v. Birmingham, 125 Ala. 378, 28 So. 51; McGehee v. Lindsay, 6 Ala. 16; Moos v. Hannon's Ad'r, 93 Ala. 503, 9 So. 596. And a contract which in its execution contravenes the policy and spirit of a statute is equally void as if made against the positive provisions. Hunt v. Knickerbacker, 5 Johns. 327; Wetmore v. Brien, 3 Head. 723." A. contract to make a settlement which would violate a statutory rule against perpetuities is unenforceable. Carrier v. Carrier, f226 N. Y. 114, 123 N. E. 135.

71 Bank v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 539, 7 L. Ed. 508; Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 U. S. 396, 9 S. Ct. 553, 32 L. Ed. 979; Perm v. Bornman, 102 HI. 523, 530; Greenough v. Balch, 7 Me. 461; White v. Buss, 3 Cush. 448; Downing v. Ringer, 7 Mo. 585; Hill v. Spear, 50 N. H. 253, 277, 9 Am. Rep. 205; Pratt v. Short, 79 N. Y. 437, 35 Am. Rep. 531; Puckett v. Alexander, 102 N. C. 95,8 S. E. 767, 3 L. R. A. 43; Rossman v. McFarland, 9 Ohio St. 369, 379; Holt v. Green, 73 Pa. St. 198, 13 Am. Rep. 737; Melchoir v. McCarty, 31 Wis. 252,11 Am Rep. 005.

72In Dunlop v. Mercer, 156 Fed-