As a general principle it is certainly true that no accounting or recovery of profits can be had by one party to an illegal transaction against another. The classical case is that of a bill brought by a highwayman to recover a share of the plunder from his confederate,54 and the principle in less dramatic form has often been applied subsequently.55 On the other hand, it is

50 Moulis v. Owen, [1907] 1 K. B. 746; Pacific Guano Go. v. Mullen, 66 Ala. 582; Ayer v. Younker, 10 Colo. App. 27, 50 Pac. 218; Johnson v, Mo-Millon, 178 Ky. 707, 199 S. W. 1070, L. R. A. 1918 G. 244; Deering v. Chap-man, 22 Me. 488, 39 Am. Dec. 592; Gotten v. McKenzie, 57 Miss. 418; Carleton v. Woods, 28 N. H. 290; Widoe v. Webb, 20 Ohio St. 431, 5 Am. Rep. 664. But see the contrary decision of Shaw v. Carpenter, 54 Vt. 155,41 Am. Rep. 837. See also Daniel, Neg. Inst., Sec. Sec. 195 et seq.

51 Cocking v. Ward, 1 C. B. 858, 877; Kennedy v. Broun, 13 G. B. (N. S.) 677; Dunbar v. Johnson, 108 Mass.

519. But see Davis v. Fleshman, 232 Pa. 409, 81 Atl. 412, 245 Pa. 224, 91 Atl. 489.

52Warren v. Chapman, 105 Mass. 87.

53 See supra, Sec.Sec. 1675,1688.

54 Everet v. Williams, 9 Law. Qu. Rev. 197. This case which had previously been supposed to be fictitious was there proved to be an actual decision.

55 Sykes v. Beadon, 11 Ch. D. 170, 195; McMullen v. Hoffman, 174 U. S. 639, 43 L. Ed. 1117, 19 S. Ct. 839; Chicago, Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 61 Fed. 993, 9 C. C. A. 659; Shaffner 0. Pinchbeck, not infrequently said that misappropriation by an agent cannot be permitted though the agent with his principal's authority was engaged in an unlawful enterprise;56 and the Circuit Court of Appeals has said in allowing recovery of money advanced by a foreign corporation doing business without complying with local statutory requirements, "One can not make a shield of a void contract to rob an associate,"57 and such a corporation has been allowed to recover from its agents money collected by them.57a Doubtless if a contract is merely void or unenforceable for any other reason than for illegality this is

133 11I. 410, 24 N. E. 410, 23 Am. St. Rep. 624; Hunter v. Pfeiffer, 108 Ind. 107, 9 N. E. 124; Martin v. Seabaugh, 128 La. 442, 54 So. 935; Snell v. Dwight, 120 Mass. 9; Duane v. Merchants' Legal Stamp Co., 227 Mass. 406, 116 N. E. 873, 231 Mass. 113; 120 N. . 370, cert, denied 39 S. Ct. 388; Morrison v. Bennett, 20 Mont. 560, 52 Pac. 553, 40 L. R. A. 158; Gould v. Kendall, 15 Neb. 549, 19 N. W. 483; Woodworth v. Bennett, 43 N. Y. 273, 3 Am. Rep. 706; Leonard v. Poole, 114 N. Y. 371, 21 N. E. 707, 4 L. R. A. 728, 11 Am. St. 667; Barry v. Mulhall, 162 N. Y. App. Div. 749, 147 N. Y. S. 996; King v. Winants, 71 N. C. 469, 17 Am. Rep. 11; Wiggins v. Bisso, 92 Tex. 219, 47 S. W. 637, 71 Am. St. Rep. 837; Watson v. Fletcher, 7 Gratt. 1; Kennedy v. Lona-baugh, 19 Wyo. 352, 117 Pac. 1079, Ann. Cas. 1913 E. 133. But see Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. 70, 17 L. Ed. 732; Kelerher v. Henderson, 203 Mo. 498, 101 S. W. 1083; Sharp v. Taylor, 2 Phil. Ch. 801; Mitchell v. Fish, 97 Ark. 444, 134 S. W. 940; Lewis v. Alexander, 51 Tex. 578; Hay-mond v. Hyer, 80 W. Va. 594, 92 S. E. 854, L. R. A., 1918 B. 1.

56 Tenant v. Elliott, 1 B. & P. 3; Farmer v. Russell, 1 B. & P. 296; Catts v. Phalen, 2 How. 376, 11 L. Ed. 306; Planters' Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall. 483, 21 L. Ed. 473; Allen v.

Forbes, 186 Fed. 276, 108 C. C. A. 322; Norton v. Blinn, 39 Ohio St. 146; Smith v. Blachley, 188 Pa. 550, 41 Atl. 619, 68 Am. St. Rep. 887; Herts-ler v. Geigley, 196 Pa. 419, 46 Atl. 366, 79 Am. St. Rep. 724; Baldwin v. Potter, 46 Vt. 402; Mechem, Agency (2d ed.), 5 1332. But see Carey v. Myers, 92 Kan. 493,141 Pac. 602, L. R. A. 1916 B. 1056; Thomas Mfg. Co. v. Knapp, 101 Minn. 432,112 N. W. 989; Bauer v. Fabel, 221 Pa. 156, 70 Atl. 558.

57 Lasswell Land, etc., Co. o. Lee Wilson & Co., 236 Fed. 322, 330, 149 C. C. A. 454.

57a United States Express Co. v. Lucas, 36 Ind. 361; Penn Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Brattley, 66 Hun, 635, 21 N. Y. S. 876, affd., without opinion, 142 N. Y. 660, 37 N. E. 469. See also Hovey's Estate, 198 Pa. 385, 48 Atl. 311. But in Thomas Mfg. Co. v. Knapp, 101 Minn. 432, 112 N. W. 989, recovery was denied on a note made by an agent to his principal, a foreign corporation, the agent being allowed to show that the note was for the proceeds of sales made by him on behalf of the corporation which had not complied with the requirements of Minnesota for doing business in the State. The court regarded the case as indistinguishable from cases involving illegality of other kinds.

true; 58 and in many jurisdictions, a foreign corporation which fails to comply with the required formalities for obtaining a license to do business, is hetil to be subjected thereby to such penalties only as the statute prescribes.58a