an express request, 116.—General rule deduced from the cases.
Moral considerations are nothing, 117.—Illegal Contracts. Aid
from an illegal Contract avoids a subsequent one. Fivaz v.
Nicholls, 120.-Two sorts of illegality. Contracts illegal at
Common Law. Immoral Contracts, 122.-Contracts contra-
vening public Policy. Corrupt bargains, 123.- Maintenance
and Champertz, 124.-In restraint of Trade. Partial restraints
of Trade are legal, 126.—But they must be reasonable, 128.—
Contracts in restraint of Marriage, 130.- Marriage Brocage
Contracts, 131.

LECTURE VI.

ILLEGAL CONTRACTS. FRAUD.

-

GAMING AND HORSE-RACING.

-

USURY.

WAGERS.

-

Recapitulation of past Lectures, page 133.- Contracts illegal at
Common Law, as obstructing the course of justice. Collins v.
Blantern, 135.-Illegal Indemnities and Releases, 136. — Fraud.
What amounts to fraud in law, 137.-Is moral fraud essential to
legal fraud? 138.—Is the Scienter requisite? Chandelor v. Lopus,
139.-Pawson v. Watson, per LORD MANSFIELD C. J. Pasley
v. Freeman. Haycraft v. Creasy, 140.- Crosse v. Gardener.
- Schneider v. Heath, per Sir JAMES MANSFIELD C. J. Adam-
son v. Jarvis, per BEST C. J. Humphries v. Pratt, 141.-
Concealment. Railton v. Matthews, per LORD COTTENHAM L. C.,
142.-Cornfoot v. Fowke, per PARKE B. S. C., per LORD
ABINGER C. B., 143.-Smout v. Ilbery, 144.—Ormrod v. Huth,
146.- Conclusion from the cases, 147.-Fraudulent misrepre-
sentations of credit, 149.-A penalty implies a prohibition.
Ordinary cases of fraudulent Contracts. Contracts tainted with
fraud are voidable and not void, 150.-Illegalities merely inci-
dental to Contracts do not avoid them, 151.—Similar cases of
illegality at Common Law. Contracts void by usury, 153.—
12 Anne, s. 2. c. 16. Belcher v. Vardon, 154.-3 & 4 W. 4.
c. 98. s. 7. 1 Vict. c. 80. and 2 & 3 Vict. c. 37. Sales to colour
The
usury, 155.
3 & 4 Vict. c. 83., and 4 Vict. c. 54.
statute of Anne is unrepealed. How to plead in actions for

penalties, 156.-Mortgages given as collateral securities to
bills. Deposit of Deeds to induce forbearance, 157.-Statutes
against gaming. 16 Car. 2. c. 7. General rules. Usurious
Contracts under the Pawnbrokers' Act, 158.-9 Anne, c. 14.
Horse races.
13 G. 2. c. 19. 18 G. 2. c. 34., 160.-Forfeiture
of horses belonging to same owner. 3 Vict. c. 5., 161.-Judg-
ment of MAULE J. in Evans v. Pratt, 162.-Applegarth v.
Colley, 163.-Bets on races. Wagers on games. 18 G. 2.
c. 34., 164.—Bets, not on games. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109. s. 18.,
165.— Wager policies, 167.—14 G. 3. c. 48., 168.

LECTURE VII.

STOCK JOBBING ACT. THE LORD'S DAY ACT.-
SIMONY. BILLS OF EXCHANGE FOR ILLEGAL
CONSIDERATION. RECOVERY OF MONEY PAID
ON ILLEGAL CONTRACTS.

The Stock-jobbing Act, page 170.-The Lord's Day Act, 171.—
Rule for construing statutes of ejusdem generis, 172.- Sunday
Sales. Simony, 173. 12 Ann. s. 2. c. 12. 31 Eliz. c. 6., 174.—
Effect of the statute of Elizabeth. Fox v. Bishop of Chester, 175.

Resignation Bonds. What is not Simony? What is Simony?
177.- Fletcher v. Lord Sondes, 179.9 Geo. 4. c. 94., 181.-
Illegal charges on benefices. 9 Geo. 4. c. 94., 182.-Assignable
Contracts, 183.-Bills of Exchange given for illegal considerations,
184.-Where illegal bills were void in hands of an innocent in-
dorsee, 185.-5 & 6 W. 4. c. 41. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109. s. 18. Pre-
sumption when note is tainted by fraud or illegality, 186.-When
no action lies to recover money on an illegal contract, 187.-
Cases in which money paid on illegal contracts may be recovered,
189.-Stamps on instruments given in evidence, 191.-Stamps
on agreements. Amount of Stamp. What agreement requires a
Stamp, 193. The value of the subject matter. Prospectuses.
Separate contracts require separate stamps. Amount of agree-
ment stamp, 194. When to be stamped. Agreements con-
tained in divers letters. Letters of Attorney. Agreement

-

-

accompanied by deposit of title-deeds.

-

Exemptions, 195.
Contracts for work.

Sale of goods, 196.- Commercial letters.
Hire of labourers. Seaman's wages. Contracts within the
9 Geo. 4. c. 14. Receipt stamps. Bills and Promissory Notes,

197.

LECTURE VIII.

-

PARTIES TO CONTRACTS. WHO ARE INCOMPETENT
TO CONTRACT.INFANTS.-WIVES.

-

Parties to Contracts, page 199.-Personal inability to contract.
Infants, 200.- Are partially disabled from contracting. May
contract for necessaries. What are necessaries for infants, 201.
-Peters v. Flemyng, 202.- Harrison v. Fane. Brooker v.
Scott, 204. Chapple v. Cooper, 205. An infant cannot
trade, 206. An infant cannot bind bimself by a bill. Nor by
stating an account. Reason why an infant may not trade,
209.
Actions cannot be maintained on infants' contracts,
212.- Partnership of infants. Goode v. Harrison, 212.-The
legal effect of ratification, 215. Persons who contract with
infants are bound by their contract. Contracts by married
women, 216. Contracts entered into by married women be-
fore marriage, 217.— Right of action on such contracts during
marriage, 218. Where bill of exchange has been given to the
wife, dum sola. Contracts entered into by married women
during coverture. Last instance of one Court at Westminster
requesting the assistance of another to hear and decide. Selwyn
on the mode of bringing the action, 219. — Where the husband
is civilly dead the wife may contract. Lady Belknap's case,
220.
- Wives may sue by the custom of the city of London.
The husband may avail himself of contracts made by his wife
during coverture, 221. - So also of bonds and notes made
able to her. Non-joinder of the husband cannot be pleaded in
bar, 222.-Gaters v. Madeley, 223. — What is sufficient reduc-
tion in possession, 224.

-

pay-

LECTURE IX.

PARTIES TO CONTRACTS.-INSANE PERSONS.
INTOXICATED PERSONS. -ALIENS.-CORPORA-

-

Baxter v.

Insane Persons, page 226.-Ancient doctrine, that acts of a Lunatic
bind himself. This doctrine was overruled subsequently, 227.-
Where fair Contracts with a Lunatic are held valid.
Portsmouth, 228.- Brown v. Jodrell. Tarbuck v. Bispham, 229.
General conclusion from the cases, 230.- Sentance v. Poole,
231.- Contracts by persons intoxicated. Where the intoxication
was the result of stratagem. Alcock v. Alcock, 232. —Where in-
toxication was caused by the party himself. Gore v. Gibson, 233.
- Aliens, 234. - - Alien friends. Rules whereby Aliens may sue
in English Courts, 235.- Contracts with Alien Enemies, 237. -
Outlaws and Felons cannot enforce Contracts. Corporations
Aggregate. The Alien Act, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 66. s. 16., 238. —
Corporations contract by Seal. Exceptions, 239. Rule as to
excepted cases, 240. Contracts by Agents. The principle in
which Agency is permissible, 242.—Who may be an Agent, 243.
— Agents, how appointed. Agents under the Statute of Frauds,
Where the Principal is bound by the Agent's Contract.
Where the Agent has exceeded his Authority. Distinction be-
tween Particular and General Agents, 245.- The Factor's Acts,
6 Geo. 4. c. 94., 246. - - Reason why a general Agent binds his
principal, and a particular Agent does not. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 39.,
Brokers, 248. Further rule as to general Agent.
Lord Holt's doctrine, 249.- Implied agency.

244.

247.

-

250.- Notice of limited authority of Agent.

Ratified agency,

Cases of excess

and non-excess of authority. Liability of Agent who exceeds
his Authority. Classes of Agents' liability, 251. — Smout v.
Ilbery, 252.- Partners, 253. -The credit may be limited to
one partner. Holcroft v. Hoggins, 254.-Cause of action must

-

-

be during time of partnership. Dormant partners equally
bound by express as by implied contracts. Nominal Partners,
255.-Notice of the retirement of a Partner. Notice of disso-
lution by dormant Partners, 256. -Where one Partner binds
another by accepting Bills. Fraudulent Contracts. Where ex-
press warning has been given. Pleading. Contracts by Public
Companies, 257.—7 & 8 Vict. c. 110. Registration. Contracts
when provisionally registered, 258. — Mode in which Companies
contract when completely registered, 259.-Sales of Scrip. When
an action will lie to recover money paid for scrip on failure of the
undertaking. Fox v. Clifton, 260.—Holmes v. Higgins. Lucas
v. Beach. Maudsley v. Leblanc. Bourne v. Freeth, 261.—Li-
ability of the company to a mere scripholder. Kempson v. Saun-
ders, 262. —Nockels v. Crosby. Walstab v. Spottiswoode. The
liability of partners in companies to the public. It flows from
the fact of partnership, 263. - Dickenson v. Valpy. Share-
holders are partners.
Ellis v. Schmack. Lawler v. Ker-
shaw, 264.- Beech v. Eyre. Gardiner v. Childs, 265. — Ap-
plication of these rules to companies under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110.
– Deed signed, 266.- Where the liability is discharged by ex-
cess of authority. Effect of subsequent recognition, 267.-
Where the liability arises from a representation of partnership.
What is a holding of oneself out, 268.— Liabilities of com-
mittees, 269. Remedies by and against allottees, 270.— Right
of action by companies for calls, 271.- Remedy in equity
Courts by Partners and Shareholders inter se, 272. — Contribu-
tion. Transfer of shares. Where the company is incorporated
by Act of Parliament, 274.—The vendor's liability and the scrip-
holder's exemption. Transfer before Registration, 275. — The
subscriber may register himself. Summary of the laws and
liabilities of Transfer, 276. - Transfer of shares in companies
under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110. before Registration. Transfer after
complete Registration of Joint-stock Companies, 277.— Disso-
lution of Railway Companies. Liability of transferrors to creditors
and third parties, 278.

-