court of justice any right founded upon or growing out of the illegal transaction." The rule in regard to Sunday contracts, except such as come within the exceptions, is this: The contract, if made on Sunday is void; if wholly or partly performed on Sunday neither party to the contract can claim any right by reason of such performance, but the parties may on a business day ratify the Sunday contract and thus make it good. No person can claim any right to recover against another by reason of goods delivered or services performed on Sunday unless a subsequent promise to pay therefor can be proven. If both parties perform a contract on Sunday, neither can get any relief against the other for any wrong growing out of such contract; if it is performed on one side, the other is without a remedy, and the party receiving a benefit is not obliged to return it.

Instances of Sunday contracts: "Though the terms of settlement of a claim for damages are agreed upon on Sunday, if afterwards it is executed and carried into effect on a secular day it becomes valid." "The loaning of money on Sunday is business within the meaning of the statute and cannot be recovered." "A lease executed on Sunday is absolutely void, where the lessee enters into possession on that day, and is incapable of ratification. Subsequent occupation creates a tenancy, but one independent of the terms of the lease." "A note as well as a contract of indemnity made on Sunday cannot be enforced." "A written agreement by the owners of land consenting to the laying of a railway track thereon and releasing all claims for damages is void if signed and delivered on Sunday." "Where the sale and delivery of property has been made on Sunday the sale cannot be rescinded or the money recovered." "A contract for hiring made on Sunday, though void, will not prevent a recovery for the services rendered at what they are reasonably worth." "No recovery or lien can be had for materials furnished on Sunday unless there is a subsequent promise on a secular day to pay for them or on account stated between the parties. No promise to that effect can be implied." "A subsequent acceptance on a secular day of an article delivered on Sunday will validate the contract; as, where an organ was delivered on Sunday, and subsequently the purchaser told the seller he liked it first rate and asked about the book and stool embraced in the original agreement, which was thereafter delivered."

Limiting liability for negligence.-No one can exempt himself by contract from any right which another may have against him by reason of his negligence. A contract of employment, for instance, whereby the employe in consideration of the employment assumes all risks of employment and agrees not to hold the master liable for damages caused by such employer or for which he is responsible, is void as against public policy. Stipulations in printed blanks, limiting the liability of telegraph companies in cases of errors, delays and non-delivery of messages from whatever cause occurring, are against public policy and void. A contract, however, whereby an employe, who is injured by reason of negligence chargeable to his employer, may elect to accept relief from a relief-department established by the employer, or to which he contributes, thereby releasing the employer from liability, is not void. The employe in such case may exercise his option, and if he decides to accept the benefits from the relief fund, he cannot thereafter sue for damages. A contract fairly entered into for settlement of injuries caused by negligence, after such negligence has occurred, is of course valid. The subject of exemption from liability by contract, is further discussed in the section on Common Carriers.

Rights of parties to an illegal contract. The general rule is that no suit can be maintained on an illegal contract, or any contract which is based upon an illegal transaction. Courts will not lend their aid to persons who have violated the law, as the courts would thus become parties to the violation of the law which they are created to uphold. The fact that one of the parties has performed an illegal contract will not entitle him to compel performance by the other. The rule of law in such cases is that when one party has obtained an advantage over another on an illegal contract "the position of the defendant is the better"; that is, he is allowed to keep his gains without interference by the courts. When both parties have performed, neither can sue the other for any matter growing out of such a contract, and the courts will leave them were it finds them. The point to be remembered about illegal contracts in this connection is that the party in possession has the law on his side, in effect, as it will not disturb that possession. There are some exceptions to the general rule, notably in the case of gamb

ling contracts in Wisconsin, and in cases where the parties are not equally at fault. An agent cannot set up the defense of illegality when his principal sues him for property in his hands belonging to the principal. A partner in an illegal partnership cannot be held to account, however. The defense of illegality may always be set up, and may be proved by oral testimony, although its effect is to vary the terms of a written instrument.

CHAPTER VII.

INFANTS AND THEIR CONTRACTS.

Generally.-In Wisconsin, in the eye of the law, every person is an infant who has not arrived at the age of twentyone years. In most states the law places the age for both males and females at twenty-one, and such is the common law, but in some states females are considered of age for certain purposes below that age. In this state the age is the same for males and females, except that it is provided that females may marry at the age of eighteen without parental consent, that the marriage of any female who is under guardianship shall terminate the right and authority of the guardian as to her custody and education, and that the court may in its discretion upon the application of such infant discharge her guardian and require him to turn over to her the estate in his possession. A will cannot be made by any person while under age, except that married women may make a will when over eighteen. Males may marry at eighteen and females at fifteen, with parental consent; in the absence of consent, males cannot marry until the age of twenty-one and females until they arrive at the age of eighteen.

A person becomes of age on the first moment of the day preceding his twenty-first birthday. This is for the reason that he becomes of age on the day before the recurrence of the anniversary of his birth, and as the law recognizes no part of a day, he, of course, is of age on every part of such day. An infant is generally disqualified from holding office or acting in any official capacity. He may hold an office, however, which does not require the use of discretion. When an infant is a party to a suit, he must be represented either by general guardian or by a guardian appointed for the purpose of the suit.

Contracts of infants may be divided into 1) valid and 2) voidable, although there are also rare instances of contracts which are absolutely void when made by an infant, such as giving a warrant of attorney. By a voidable contract in this connection is meant one which may be enforced or repudiated at the option of the infant. A void contract is no contract at all, and has absolutely no existence, whereas a voidable contract is one which is in force, but may be declared void by one of the parties. The tendency of the courts formerly was to declare all contracts of infants which tended to their prejudice as absolutely void, but at the present time the tendency is to construe them as voidable.

Valid contracts. -Whenever the law imposes a duty on an infant, he may make a valid contract, the purpose of which is to provide for its performance. Thus, an infant who is married may make a valid contract to supply necessaries of life to himself and family. Whenever an infant holds property in trust belonging to another, he may make a valid conveyance of it to such other or to some one at his request, and he cannot avoid such a conveyance for the reason that the law would compel him to make it if he were unwilling. A contract for military service is good if the infant is of required age, as is also a contract of apprenticeship, if properly entered into.

Contracts for necessaries: The best known exception to the general rule making contracts of infants voidable is that holding such contracts good for necessaries. There is an implied contract on the part of an infant to pay for necessaries of life when he is not otherwise supplied. The general statement and impression of the law seems to be that infants are liable for the necessaries under all circumstances. Such is not the law. The important qualification of the rule is that an infant is only so liable when he is not supplied with such necessaries from some other source. An infant cannot make an express contract for necessaries, that is, he cannot bind himself to pay any certain sum for them as an adult can, but his contract to pay for them is implied by law, and he can never be held for more than the reasonable value of the necessaries furnished him; the contract is thus really the contract of the law and not that of the infant. Accurately stated, the infant does not contract to pay for necessaries, but the law imposes a duty on him to pay for them.