Besides contracts in violation of a statute purely for revenue, there are other statutes which, though they make transactions in violation of them unenforceable, do not make them illegal, "It is settled that, where the contract which the plaintiff seeks to enforce is expressly, or by implication, forbidden by the statute, no court will lend its assistance to give it effect. Cope v. Rowlands, 2 M. & W. 149. By the great weight of authority a contract entered into by an unlicensed person, engaged in a trade, business, or profession required to be licensed, and made in the course of such trade, business or profession, cannot be en-forced by such person, if it appears tuat tne license required by the statute is, in whole or in part, for the proteo-tion of the public, and to prevent improperpersons from engaging in such trade, business, or profession. If, how-ever,the purpose of the statute is to raise revenue only, his right to enforce such contract is nut defeated by the want of a license, Elliott on Con-tracts, Sec. 267; Cope v. Rowlands, 2 M. & W. 149; Randall v. Tuell, 89 Me. 443, 36 Atl. 910, 38 L. R. A. 143; Blank p. Security Mutual Life Assoc 95 Me. 35, 49 Atl. 5l, M L. U. A. 939; Fairly v. Wappoo Mills, 44 S. C. 227, 22 S. E. 108, 29 L. R. A. 215; Stevenson v. Ewing, 87 Tenn. 46, 9 S. W. 230." In the case before it, however, the Maryland court denied the right of an unlicensed insurance agent to recover for securing an insurance contract to be written by the defendant company, on the ground that the statute requiring the licensing of insurance agents was in part at least for the protection of the public. Cf. with the decisions cited in this section those cited supra, Sec. 1766.

properly speaking. These statutes are intended for the protection of the individual parties to a transaction, rather than for the general protection of the public. Such a statute is the Statute of Frauds; and such is the statute of the United States, requiring contracts with the government to be "reduced to writing and signed by the contracting parties with their names at the end thereof." 3a A contract made without complying with the requirements of these statutes is as completely unenforceable as if it were illegal.4 But unlike illegal contracts, if the contract is carried out by either party, legal redress may be had for the non-performance of the other party.5 In the section of the Statute of Frauds relating to the sale of goods, part performance on either side is in terms made a satisfaction of the statute, and, therefore, after such part performance, recovery may be had on the contract itself.6 Under the Federal statute referred to, the contract remains unenforceable even after full performance by the seller, but as the provisions of the statute are held to be rather for the purpose of compelling governmental officials to comply with statutory directions for the formation of contracts than to render illegal a contract made otherwise, one who has performed a contract where the required formalities were not observed may recover on a quantum meruit or quantum valebat.7 A Michigan statute prohibiting doing business under an assumed name, though rendering a contract made in violation of it unenforceable by the offending party, does not preclude recovery thereon by one who innocently contracted with him.8

Reference may also be made here to ultra vires contracts of corporations.9 Lack of corperate capacity should not be confused with illegality.

3a U. S. Comp. St., Sec. 6895.

4 See as to the Statute of Frauds, supra, { 527. As to the Federal statute referred to, see Clark v. United States, 95 U. S. 539, 24 L. Ed. 518; South Boston Iron Co. v. United States, 118 U. S. 37, 6 S. Ct. 928, 30 L. Ed. 69; St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. United States, 191 U. S. 159, 24 S. Ct. 47, 48 L. Ed. 130.

5 See supra, Sec.Sec. 533-537.

• See supra, Sec. 540.

7 Clark v. United States, 95 U. S. 539, 24 L. Ed. 518; St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. United States, 191 U. S. 159, 24 S. Ct. 47, 48 L. Ed. 130; United States v. Andrews, 207 U. S. 229, 243, 52 L. Ed. 185, 28 S. Ct. Rep. 100.

8 Cashin v. Pliter, 168 Mich. 386,134 N. W. 482, Ann. Cas. 1913 C. 697. See also infra, Sec. 1773.

9 See supra, Sec.271.