Where a statute prohibits altogether the sale of certain goods, not only an agreement for such a sale is invalid, but if a sale is made in violation of law the agreed price cannot be recovered.73 Where a statute requires a broker to obtain a license before sales of the kind in question can be negotiated by him, there is no doubt that if such a sale is made by one acting as a broker without the required license, he can recover no compensation for his services.74 And even though sale of particular goods is not illegal in itself, if the seller is violating the law in selling them without complying with some statutory prerequisite, the policy of the law generally denies recovery of the price. This has been held even when the only illegality is breach of a requirement under statutory penalty that the seller shall take out a license, if the purpose of the statute is, in part at least, for the protection of the public and not solely for purposes of revenue.75 It may be observed, however, that a statute which requires a license to be paid for by a traveling salesman is void, at least so far as concerns salesmen from another State, as violating the provision of the Federal Constitution giving Congress exclusive control over interstate and foreign commerce.76
545, 565, 86 C. C. A. 435, the court said: "The general rule that an illegal contract is void and unenforceable is, however, not without exception. It is not universal in its application. It is qualified by the exception that where a contract is not evil in itself, and its validity is not denounced as a penalty by the express terms of or by rational implication from the language of the statute which it violates, and that statute prescribes other specific penalties, it is not the province of the courts to do so, and they will not thus affix an additional penalty not directed by the lawmaking power. Fritts v. Palmer, 132 U. S. 282, 289, 293, 10 8. Ct. 93,33 L. Ed. 317; National Bank v. Matthews, 98 U. S. 621, 629, 25 L. Ed. 188; Logan County Bank v. Townsend, 139 U. S. 67, 76, 11 8. Ct. 496, 35 L. Ed. 107; Thompson v. St. Nicholas Nat. Bank, 146 U. 8. 240, 13 8. Ct. 66, 36 L. Ed. 956; Blodgett v. Lanyon Zinc Co., 120 Fed. 893, 896, S97, 58 C. C. A. 79, 82, 83; Sioux City etc., Co. v. Trust Co., 82 Fed. 124,134, 49 U. S8. App. 523, 27 C. G. A. 73, 83; Hanover Bank v. First Nat. Bank of Burlingame, 109 Fed. 421, 426, 48 C. E. A. 482, 487; Speer v. Board of County Commrs., 88 Fed. 749, 758, 60 U. S. App. 38, 32 C. C. A. 101, 110; National Bank of Xenia v. Stewart, 107 U. 8. 676, 2 S. Ct. 778, 27 L. Ed. 592; Gold Mining Co. v. National Bank, 96 U. 8. 640, 24 L. Ed. 648; CHare 9. Bank, 77 Pa. St. 96; Pangborn v. West-lake, 36 Iowa, 546; Chattanooga R. A
C. R. Co. v. Evans, 14 C. C. A. 116,121, 122, 66 Fed. 809, 815, 31 U. S. App. 432."
73 Thus in Massachusetts a sale of milk below a certain standard is an illegal sale. Miller v. Post, 1 Allen, 434; Copeland v. Boston Dairy Co., 184 Mass. 207, 68 N. E. 201. In Maine the seller of cattle infected with tuberculosis cannot recover the price, though ignorant that the cattle were diseased. Church 0. Knowles, 101 Me. 264, 63 Atl. 1042. The sale of animals afflicted with glanders is prohibited in Arkansas. Compagionette v. Mc-Armick, 91 Ark. 69, 120 8. W. 400. The sale of imported second-hand clothing is prohibited in Georgia. Smith v. Evans, 125 Ga. 109, 53 8. E. 589. In Law 9. Hodson, 11 East, 300, recovery was denied the seller of bricks because of the statute requiring bricks to be of certain dimensions to which the bricks sold did not conform. In Wheeler v. Russell, 17 Mass. 258, a note calling for shingles of illegal size was similarly unenforceable. In Eaton v. Kegan, 114 Mass. 433, the price of oats sold by the bag was held not recoverable because of a statute requiring such goods to be sold by the bushel; but in Eldredge v. McDermott, 178 Mass. 256, 59 N. E. 806, the court held that if a custom was proved that a bag of oats contained two bushels, the price of oats sold in bags could be recovered, being in effect a sale by the bushel. See also Durgin v. Dyer, 68 Me. 143.