The importance of the distinction between liquidated damages and penalty, consists in the effect which the courts give to the two kinds of stipulation. At Modern Law a contract for a penalty is unenforceable and practically void. The actual damage, and that alone, may be recovered. This may be, on the one hand, less than the amount of the penalty,1 and on the other it may exceed it.2 The actual damages sustained must be shown ;3 otherwise only nominal damages can be recovered.4 There is some authority for treating a provision for a penalty as prima facie evidence of the amount of damage suffered, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.5

6 8 and 9 William III., c. 11.

1 Watts v. Camors, 115 U. S. 353; Van Buren v. Digges, 11 How. (U. S.) 461; Chicago House-Wrecking Co. v. United States, 106 Fed. 385; 53 L. R. A. 122; 45 C. C. A. 343; Henry v. Ry., 91 Ala. 585; 8 So. 343; Hennessy v. Metzger, 152 111. 505; 43 Am. St. Rep. 267; 38 N. E. 1058; Low v. Nolte, 16 111. 475; Lord v. Gaddis, 9 Ia. 265; Foley v. McKeegan, 4 Ia. 1; 66 Am. Dec. 107; Hahn v. Horstman, 12 Bush.(Ky.) 249; Perkins v. Lyman, 11 Mass. 76: 6 Am. Dec. 158; Ham-aker v. Schroers, 49 Mo. 406; Lindsay v. Anesley, 28 N. C. 186; Kelley v. Seay, 3 Okla. 527; 41 Pac. 615; Bigouy v. Tyson, 75 Pa. 157; Bear-den v. Smith, 11 Rich. L. (S. C) 554; Johnson v. Cook, 24 Wash. 474; 64 Pac. 729.

2 Watts v. Camors, 115 U. S. 353; Williston v. Mathews, 55 Minn. 422; 56 N. W. 1112; Morrill v. Weeks, 70 N. H. 178; 46 Atl. 32; Gloucester City v. Eschbach, 54 N. J. L. 150; 23 Atl. 360; Moore v. Colt, 127 Pa. St. 289; 14 Am. St. Rep. 845; 18 Atl. 8; Commerce, etc., Co. v. Morris. 27 Tex. Civ. App. 553; 65 S. W. 1118.

3 Wilson v. Dean, 10 Ia. 432; Johnson v. Cook, 24 Wash. 474; 64 Pac. 729.

4 Eva v. McMahon, 77 Cal. 467; 19 Pac. 872; O'Keefe v. Dyer, 20 Mont. 477; 52 Pac. 196; Johnson v. Cook, 24 Wash. 474; 64 Pac. 729.

5 Elston v. Roop, 133 Ala. 331; 32 So. 129. (It was not clear whether this provision was for a penalty or for liquidated damages.)