The legality of a contract depends upon the law of the place where it is made.84 If the contract was illegal (as distinguished from merely unenforceable) where made it is invalid everywhere 85 and if valid where made it is generally enforceable everywhere.86 The latter rule, however, is qualified by the doctrine that no State will enforce a contract though valid where made, if its enforcement is contrary to the policy of the forum.87 tract before it is executed. It is essential to both classes that the contract be merely malum prohibitum. If malum in se the courts will in no case interfere to relieve either party from any of its consequences." Whatever may be said in regard to any absolute distinction between a bargain which is malum prohibitum, and one which is malum in se, it is certainly true that some consequences flow from the comparative enormity of illegal transactions.

84 The Miguel Di Larrinaga, 217 Fed. 678; Illustrated Postal Card, etc., Co. v. Holt, 85 Conn. 140, 81 Atl. 1061; Altland v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 151 111. App. 291; Western Life Indemnity Co. v. Rupp, 147 Ky. 489, 144 S. W. 743; Bond v. Cummings, 70 Me. 125; Tremain v. Dyott, 161 Mo. App. 217, 142 S. W. 760; Lovell v. Boston & M. R. Co., 75 N. H. 568, 78 Atl. 621, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 67; Williamson v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 151 N. C. 223, 65 S. E. 974; Carpenter v. Hanes, 167 N. C. 551, 83 S. E. 577; Marx v

Hefner, 46 Okla. 453, 149 Pac. 207, Ann. Cas. 1917 B. 656; Davis v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 93 Wis. 470, 67 N. W. 16, 33 L. R. A. 654, 57 Am. St. Rep. 935.

85 Orr's Adm. v. Orr, 157 Ky. 570, 163 S. W. 757; Standard Fashion Co. v. Grant, 165 N. C. 453, 81 S. E. 606; and see cases in the preceding note.

86 The Miguel Di Larrinaga, 217 Fed. 678; International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114, 124 N. W. 1042, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 774; and see cases cited supra, n. 84.

87 Union Trust Co. v. Grosman, 245 U. S. 412, 38 S. Ct. 147, 62 L. Ed. 368; Vandalia R. Co. v. Kelly (Ind., 1918), 119 N. E. 257; Corbin v. Houlehan, 100 Me. 246, 61 Atl. 131, 70 L. R. A. 568; Emery v. Burbank, 163 Mass. 326, 39 N. E. 1026, 28 L. R. A. 57; Thompson o. Taylor, 66 N. J. L. 253, 49 Atl. 544, 54 L. R. A. 585,88 Amer. St. Rep. 485; People v. Martin, 175 N. Y. 315, 67 N. E. 589, 96 Am. St. Rep. 628; Marx v. Hefner, 46 Okla. 453, 149 Pac. 207, Ann. Cas. 1917 B. 656.