In many states the question as to the effect of a contract between a public corporation and one of its officers is settled by statute making a contract with a public or quasi-public corporation unlawful if any officer thereof is interested directly or indirectly in such contract.1 The effect of such a statute is not overcome by the fact that the public corporation needed the property which it bought,2 that the officer acted in good faith,3 or that the price which is charged is reasonable.4 The imposition of a penalty upon such a contract usually makes it void, although there is no statutory provision making it void in express terms.5 This is a question of legislative intent, however, and the penalty may be the exclusive consequence of the violation of law, leaving the contract valid.6

6Young v. Mankato, 97 Minn. 4, 3 L. R. A. (N.S.) 849, 105 N. W. 969,

7Arkansas. Spearman v. Texarkana, 58 Ark. 348, 22 L. R. A. 855, 24 S. W. 883.

Georgia. Mayor, etc., v. Huff, 60 Ga. 221.

Kansas. Concordia v. Hagaman, 1 Kan. App. 35, 41 Pac. 133.

Minnesota. Currie v. School District, 35 Minn. 163, 27 N. W. 922.

Nebraska. Call Publishing Co. v. Lincoln, 29 Neb. 149, 45 N. W. 245.

New Jersey. Gardner v. Butler, 30 N. J. Eq. 702.

Wisconsin. Pickett v. School District, 25 Wis. 551, 3 Am. Rep. 105.

Contra, Bay v. Davidson, 133 la. 688, 119 Am. St. Rep. 650, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1014, 111 N. W. 25; Young v. Mankato, 97 Minn. 4, 3 L. R. A. (N.S.) 849, 105 N. W. 969.

8Findlay v. Pertz, 66 Fed. 427, 13 C. C. A. 559, 29 L. R. A. 188; State v. Buttles, 3 O. S. 309; Trainer v. Wolfe, 140 Pa. St. 279, 21 Atl. 391.

1California. Capron v. Hitchcock, 98 Cal. 427,33 Pac. 431; Berka v. Woodward, 125 Cal. 119, 73 Am. St. Rep. 31, 45 L. R. A. 420, 57 Pac. 777; Osburn v. Stone, 170 Cal. 480, 150 Pac. 367.

Indiana. State v. Windle, 156 Ind. 648, 59 N. E. 276; Noble v. Davidson, 177 Ind. 19, 96 N. E. 325.

Idaho. Collman v. Wanamaker, 27 Ida. 342, 149 Pac. 292.

Kansas. Sedgwick County v. State, 66 Kan. 634, 72 Pac. 284.

Kentucky. Nunemacher v. Louisville, 98 Ky. 334, 32 S. W. 1091; Keenon v. Adams, 176 Ky. 618, 196 S. W. 173.

Maine. Goodrich v. Waterville, 88 Me. 39, 33 Atl. 659.

Michigan. Ferle v. Lansing, 189 Mich. 501, L. R. A. 1917C, 1096, 155 N. W. 591.

Minnesota. Stone v. Bevans, 88 Minn. 127, 97 Am. St. Rep. 506, 92 N. W. 520.

Nebraska. McElhinney v. Superior, 32 Neb. 744, 49 N. W. 705.

New York. Woodworth v. Bennett, 43 N. Y. 273, 3 Am. Rep. 706.

North Carolina. Davidson v. Guilford County, 152 N. Car. 436, 67 S. E. 918.

Ohio. Marsh v. Hartwell, 2 Ohio N. P. 389.

Pennsylvania. Milford v. Water Co., 124 Pa. St. 610, 3 L. R. A. 122, 17 Atl. 185; Commonwealth v. De Camp, 177 Pa. St. 112, 35 Atl. 601.

South Dakota. Palmer v. State, 11 S. D. 78, 75 N. W. 818.

Washington. Northport v. Town Site Co., 27 Wash. 543, 68 Pac. 204.

Wisconsin. Land, etc., Co. v. Mc-Intyre, 100 Wis. 245, 69 Am. St. Rep. 915, 75 N. W. 964; Arbuthnot v. Kel-ley, 165 Wis. 362, 162 N. W. 168.

A. statute which by its terms applies only to contracts of sale, does not apply to other classes of contracts,7 such as contracts for labor8 or loans of money.9

Under a statute which forbids all contracts between a public corporation and its officer, a board of school trustees can not employ the wife of one of the trustees as a teacher.10 If a board of freeholders is appointed for the purpose of drafting a charter for a city, and if it is authorized to employ an attorney, it can not employ one of its own members as such attorney.11 Under such statute no recovery can be had on such contract, or for reasonable compensation for materials and services furnished,12 and under tes the officer can be compelled to repay to the governe has received under such contract.13 Such a contract fied by the public corporation.14 Such statute does right to recover for such articles as gas furnished the requirements of law and the ordinance givpany its franchise, and not under an express con-

2 Arbuthnot v. Kelley, 165 Wis. 362, 162 N. W. 168.

3Arbuthnot v. Kelley, 165 Wis. 362, 162 N. W. 168.

4 Keenon v. Adams, 176 Ky. 618, 196 S. W. 173. (But such payment, if made, can not be recovered in quasi-contract.)

5Ferle v. Lansing, 189 Mich. 501, 155 N. W. 591.

6 Blaser v. Heuvel, 164 Wis. 98, 159 N. W. 735.

7 Keenon v. Adams, 176 Ky. 618, 196 S. W. 173; Long v. Lemoyne Borough, 222 Pa. St. 311, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 474, 71 Atl. 211; State v. Cleveland, 161 Wis. 457, 152 N. W. 819 [reversed on rehearing, on another point, State v. Cleveland, 161 Wis. 457, 154 N. W. 980].

8Keenon v. Adams, 176 Ky. 618, 196 S. W. 173; State v. Cleveland, 161 Wis. 457, 152 N. W. 819 [reversed on rehearing, on another point, State v. Cleveland, 161 Wis. 457, 154 N. W. 980].

9Long v. Lemoyne Borough, 222 Pa. St. 311, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 474, 71 Atl. 211.

10Nuckols v. Lyle, 8 Ida. 589, 70 Pac. 401.

11Toung v. Mankato, 97 Minn. 4, 3 L. R. A. (N.S.) 849, 105 N. W. 969.

12 California. Berka v. Woodward, 125 Cal. 119, 73 Am. St. Rep. 31, 45 L. R. A 420, 57 Pac. 777.

Indiana. Brazil v. McBride, 69 Ind. 244.

Iowa. Bay v. Davidson, 133 la. 688, 119 Am. St. Rep. 650, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1014, 111 N. W. 25.

Maine. Goodrich v. Waterville, 88 Me. 39, 33 Atl. 659.

Missouri. Seaman v. Cap-Au-Gris Levee District, 219 Mo. 1, 117 S. W. 1084.

South Dakota. Palmer v. State, 11 S. D. 78, 75 N. W. 818.

Contra, First National Bank v. Goodhue, 120 Minn. 362, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 84, 139 N. W. 599.

Such ft statute has been held not to prevent a public officer from recovering money which he has advanced to enable the public corporation to pay its valid obligations. Blaser v. Heuvel, 164 Wis. 98, 159 N. W. 735.