The price of liquor sold in violation of a liquor license law, cannot be recovered,77 nor the price of goods sold in violation

74 Cope v. Rowlands, 2 M. & W. 149; Hustis v. Picklands, 27 111. App. 270 (paper); Richardson v. Brix, 94 Iowa, 626, 63 N. W. 325; Black v. Security Mutual Assn., 96 Me. 39, 49

Humason, 50 Minn. 195, 52 N. W. 385, 16 L. R. A. 423, 36 Am. St. Rep. 437; Holt v. Green, 73 Pa. St. 196, 13 Am. Rep. 737; Johnson v. Hidings, 103 Pa. St. 498, 49 Am. Rep. 131; Stevenson v. Ewing, 87 Tenn. 46, 9 S. W. 230. The rule is the same in regard to other occupations for which a similar requirement is made; see the following section.

75 Bull v. Harragan, 17 B. Mon. 349 (peddler). And see decisions cited infra, n. 77, of unlicensed sales of liquor. In Mabry v. Bullock, 7 Dana, 337, it appears that the statute expressly provided that all contracts for the sale of clocks should be void unless the seller has a license. See also Rash v. Farley, 91 Ky. 344, 15 S. W. 862, 34 Am. St. 233; Best v. Bauder, 29 How. Pr. 489; Stevenson v. Ewing, 87 Tenn. 46, 9 S. W. 230. But compare Banks v. McGosker, 82 Md. 518, 34 Atl. 539, 51 Am. St. 478; Mandlebaum v. Gregovich, 17 Nev. 87, 28 Pac. 121, 45 Am. Rep. 433; Jones v. Berry, 33 N. H. 209; Eberstadt v. Jones, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 480, 48 S. W. 558. See also Smith v. Lindo, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 395, where an unlicensed broker was allowed to recover from his principal money paid in executing a purchase for him. In Levison v. Boas, 150 Cal. 185, 88 Pac. 825, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 575, an unlicensed pawnbroker was held to have no lien on goods on which he had made a loan. See also Ferguson v. Norman, 5 Bing. (N. C.) 76; Victorian Daylesford Syndicate v. Dott, [1905] 2 Ch. 624; Bonnard v. Dott, ]1906] 1 Ch. 740; Lodge w. National Union Inv. Co., [1907] 1 Ch. 300.

76 Coldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U. S. 622, 47 L. Ed. 336, 23 S. Ct. 229, and cases cited; Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U. S. 389, 33 S. Ct. 294, 57 L. Ed. 565, and cases cited.

77 Miller v. Ammon, 145 U. S. 421, 12 S. Ct. 844, 36 L. Ed. 759; Lang v. Lynch, 38 Fed. 489; O'Bryan v. Fitsof a law requiring weights and measures to be sealed,78 or of a law requiring coal79 ornumber80 to be weighed or sur-veyed by a public officer, or requiring goods to be marked to indicate their character or composition.81 A physician without the license to practice required by law cannot recover for his services,82 nor can a lawyer,82a steamboat en- Patrick, 48 Ark. 487, 3 S. W. 527; Dol-son v. Hope, 7 Kans. 161; Vannoy v. Patton, 5 B. Mon. 248; Cobb v. Billings, 23 Me. 470; Bondy v. Hardina, 216 Mass. 44, 102 N. E. 935; Loranger v. Jardine, 56 Mich. 518, 23 N. W. 203; Niagara Falls Brewing Co. v. Wall, 98 Mich. 158, 57 N. W. 99; Solomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn. 278; Lewis v. Welch, 14 N. H. 294; Coldwell v. Wentworth, 14 N. H. 431; Covington v. Threadgill, 88 N. C. 186; Griffith v. Wells, 3 Denio, 226; Bancroft v. Dumas, 21 Vt. 456; Aiken v. Blaisdell, 41 Vt. 655; Bach v. Smith, 2 Wash. Terr. 145, 3 Pac. 831; Gorsuth v. Butter-field, 2 Wis. 237; Melchoir v. McCarty, 31 Wis. 252, 11 Am. Rep. 605.

78 Miller v. Post, 1 Allen, 434; Bis-v. McAllen. 39 Minn. 143, 39 N W. 290; Finch v. Barclay, 87 Ga. 393, 13 S. E. 566; Smith v. Arnold, 106 Mass. 269; Sawyer v. Smith, 109 Mass. 220; Eaton v. Kegan, 114 Mass. 433.

79 Little v. Poole, 9 B. & C. 192; Libby v, Downey, 5 Allen, 299.

80 Richmond v. Fobs, 77 Me. 590, 1 Atl. 830; Prescott v. Battersby, 119 Mass. 285; Pray v. Burbank, 10 N. H. 377.

81 The following cases relate to fertilisers: Pacific Guano Co. v. Mullen, 66 Ala. 582; Merriman v. Knox, 99 Ala. 93, 11 So. 741; Brown v. Adair, 104 Ala. 652, 16 So. 439; Brown v. Raisin Fertilizer Co., 124 Ala. 221, 26 So. 891; Bowdoin v. Alabama Chemical Co., (Ala. 1918), 79 So. 4; Kleckley v. Leyden, 63 Ga. 215; Johnston v. Mc-Connell, 65 Ga. 129; Lorentz v. Conner, 69 Ga. 761; Vanmeter v. Spurier, 94 Ky. 22, 21 S. W. 337; McConnell v. Kitchens, 20 S. C. 430. But see Niemeyer v. Wright, 75 Va. 239, 40 Am. Rep. 720. The same rule was applied where the statute in question related to other goods. Forster v. Taylor, 5 B. A Ad. 887 (butter); Buxton v. Hamblen, 32 Me. 448 (hay).

82 D'Allex t;. Jones, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 979; Harrison v. Jones, 80 Cal. 412; Taliaferro v. Moffett, 54 Ga. 150; Gardner v. Tatum, 81 Cal. 370, 22 Pac. 880; Quarles v. Evans, 7 La. Ann. 543; Fox v. Dixon, 58 Hun, 605, 12 N. Y. S. 267; Deaton v. Lawson, 40 Wash. 486, 82 Pac. 879, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 392, 111 Am. St. 922. Cf. Prietto v. Lewis, 11 Mo. App. 600; Smythe v. Hanson, 61 Mo. App. 285.

82aTaylor v. Crowland Gas & Coke Co., 10 Exch. 293; Hittson v. Browne, 3 Colo. 304; Tedrick v. Hiner, 61 111. 189; East St. Louis v. Freels, 17 111. App. 339; Parkins v. McDuffee, 63 Me. 181; Browne v. Phelps, 211 Mass. 379, 97 N. E. 762; Mclver v. Clarke, 69 Miss. 408, 10 So. 581; Westoott v. Baker, 83 N. J. L. 460, 85 Atl. 315; Goldenberg v. Law, 17 N. Mex. 546, 131 Pac. 499; Buxton v. Lietz, 139 N. Y. S. 46; Hall v. Bishop, 3 Daly, 109. Cf. In re Horton, 8 Q. B. D. 434; Miller v. Ballerino, 135 Cal. 566, 67 Pac. 1046, 68 Pac. 600; Brooke v. Volunteer Harbor Assoc., 233 Mass 168,123 N. K.

511, 4 A. L. R. 1086; Harland v. LQ-ienthal, 53 N. Y. 438, 440. A corporation cannot engage in the practice of law, even though it employs, as agents for the purpose, members of the bar. Application of Cooperative Co., 198 N. Y. 479, 92 N. E. 15, 32 L. R. A.

gineer,83 teacher,84 architect,85 plumber,86 or a scavenger87 for whom the law makes a similar requirement. An innkeeper without a required license cannot recover for board and lodging.88 Agreements for the conveyance of homestead property entered into by one only of a married couple have been held not only to afford no ground for specific enforcement to the extent of the right of the party contracting,89 but to give no right to recover damages against him.90 The.object of the homestead statute it is thought would be defeated if such a liability were permitted, since it might be used as a means of wringing consent from an unwilling spouse. Whether the failure of a vendor of land to comply with a law requiring a plat first to be recorded deprives him of a right to recover the price has been differently decided.91 Recovery of rent has been denied to a landlord who failed to comply with a statute requiring the erection of fire-escapes on the leased building;92 and somewhat similarly, a plaintiff who had done threshing for the plaintiff with a machine not provided with appliances which the law required has been denied recovery for his services.93 Some of the cases cited in this section are not always easy to distinguish from decisions (N. S.) 551, 139 Am. St. Rep. 839, 19 Ann. Cas. 879.

83 The Pioneer, Deady, 72.

84 Wells v. People, 71 111. 632.

85 Fitzhugh v. Mason, 2 Cal. App. 220, 83 Pac. 282. The court held that a valid contract might be made before a professional certificate was obtained though the services might not legally be rendered till it was obtained.

86 Johnston v. Dahlgren, 31 N. Y. App. D. 204, 52 N. Y. S. 555.

87De Wit t;. Lander, 72 Wis. 120, 39 N. W. 349.

88 Stanwood v. Woodward, 38 Me. 192.

89 Mundy v. Shellaberger, 161 Fed. 503, 88 C. C. A. 445; Clark ». Bird, 158 Ala. 278, 48 So. 359, 132 Am. St. Rep. 25; Wheelock v. Countryman, 133 Iowa, 289, 110 N. W. 598; Thompson v. Foken, 81 Nev. 261, 115 N. W. 770.

90 Mundy v. Shellaberger, 161 Fed. 503, 88 C. C. A. 445; Wheelock v. Countryman, 133 Iowa, 289,110 N. W. 596; Lichty v. Beale, 75 Neb. 770, 106 N. W. 1018; Silander v. Gronna, 15 N. Dak. 552, 108 N. W. 544, 125 Am. St. 616; Rosenthal v. Pleck, 166 Wis. 598, 166 N. W. 445. Cf. White v. Bates, 234 111. 276, 84 N. . 906.

91 That it does, see Downing v. Ringer, 7 Mo. 585; Mason v. Pitt, 21 Mo. 391. See also Bemis v. Becker, 1 Elan. 226. That it does not, Pangbom v. Westlake, 36 la. 546; Strong v. Darling, 9 Ohio, 201.

92 Leuthold v. Stickney, 116 Minn. 299,133 N. W. 856, 39 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 231, Ann. Cas. 1913 B. 405. The case is criticised in 74 Cent. L. J. 196.

93 Ingersoll v. Randall, 14 Minn. 400.

where recovery was allowed on the ground that the purpose of the statute was to secure revenue.94