On a true construction generally even a revenue statute will be found to prohibit contracts made without satisfying the requirements of the law. There can certainly be no doubt that a contract or sale is illegal which, irrespective of the persons who take part in it, itself necessarily involves a breach of a revenue lawv-vas a contract to sell liquor without paying the government tax;2 or goods without payment of customs duties.3

2 Creekmore v. Chitwood, 7 Bush, 317; Curren v. Downs, 3 Mo. App. 468. In North Carolina v. Vander-ford, 35 Fed. 376, it was held that a purchaser of whiskey without the stamps or brands required by law had no title which the law would protect and one who destroyed such whiskey was not criminally liable.

3 Biggs v. Lawrence, 3 T. R. 454; Clugas v. Penaluna, 4 T. R. 466; Way-mell v. Reed, 5 T. R. 599; Condon v. Walker, 1 Yeates, 483; Mullen v. Kerr, 6 U. C. Q. B. (O. S.) 171. In the case last cited a seller in the United States furnished false invoices for the purpose of evading the Canadian customs duties. Recovery of the price was not allowed. Such a case as Holman v. Johnson, 1 Cowp. 341, where the actual transaction involved no breach of law, but the seller knew the buyer intended to break the law thereafter, must be distinguished. See infra, Sec.1754.