contract made violation in Alabama

1939We are not here considering .a demurrer to the bill for insufficiency of parties as we were in Turnipseed v. Blan, 226 Ala. 549 , 148 So. 116 , in which we held that a bill for an injunction against paying State warrants was subject to demurrer unless their holders, or if numerous enough to represent the class (Chancery Rule 19), were made parties.

1939We are not here considering .a demurrer to the bill for insufficiency of parties as we were in Turnipseed v. Blan, 226 Ala. 549 , 148 So. 116 , in which we held that a bill for an injunction against paying State warrants was subject to demurrer unless their holders, or if numerous enough to represent the class (Chancery Rule 19), were made parties.

1931The condition of parties thus situated, the effect upon their-innocent offspring, and the outrage to public morals, were considered as strong and decisive reasons for giving place to the laws of the foreign country, not merely on account of comity, for that would not be offended by declaring null a contract made in violation of the laws of the state in which the parties lived, by evasion, but from general policy.” This authority was cited by this court in the early case of Reed v. Hudson, supra. In Massachusetts, following the suggestion found in the opinion in the Putnam Case, supra, the rule

1931Rep. 509 ; Whippen v. Whippen, 171 Mass. 500 , 51 N. E. 174 ), but no statute of like character has been enacted in this state, and the principle of law involved is therefore unaffected by any such consideration.

1931The condition of parties thus situated, the effect upon their-innocent offspring, and the outrage to public morals, were considered as strong and decisive reasons for giving place to the laws of the foreign country, not merely on account of comity, for that would not be offended by declaring null a contract made in violation of the laws of the state in which the parties lived, by evasion, but from general policy.” This authority was cited by this court in the early case of Reed v. Hudson, supra. In Massachusetts, following the suggestion found in the opinion in the Putnam Case, supra, the rule

1917They are those which go to show that the instrument was absolutely void, and not merely voidable, (1) by reason of the incapacity of the party assuming to contract; or (2) by reason of some positive inhibition of law; or (3) by reason of the want of consent of the party sought to be bound by the particular contract.” In addition to interdiction of the act or transaction out of which the alleged cause of action arises, the statute (Code 1907, § 1644) provides: “A physician whose certificate of qualification is not on record in the county in which he resides shall not be entitled to recover at l

1888In Hawley v. Bibb, 69 Ala. 52 , it was decided by this court, that a bill given for money to be advanced to the maker by the payee, to enable him to engage in buying and selling such futures in the State of New York, was a mere contract founded on a loan or advance of money to bet, as a wager, on the. future price of cotton, and as . such would be illegal and void between the immediate parties, and purchasers with notice, as a contract made in violation of the public policy.

1885In O'Donnell v. Sweeny, 5 Ala. 468 , it is said : “ It would indeed be a strange anomaly, if a contract made in violation of a statute, and prohibited by a penalty, could be enforced in the courts of the same country whose laws are thus trampled on and set at defiance.” — Shippey v. Eastwood, 9 Ala. 198 ; Milton v. Haden, 32 Ala. 30 ; Woods v. Armstrong, 54 Ala. 150 ; Renfro v. Loyd, 64 Ala. 94 .

1885In O'Donnell v. Sweeny, 5 Ala. 468 , it is said : “ It would indeed be a strange anomaly, if a contract made in violation of a statute, and prohibited by a penalty, could be enforced in the courts of the same country whose laws are thus trampled on and set at defiance.” — Shippey v. Eastwood, 9 Ala. 198 ; Milton v. Haden, 32 Ala. 30 ; Woods v. Armstrong, 54 Ala. 150 ; Renfro v. Loyd, 64 Ala. 94 .

1885In O'Donnell v. Sweeny, 5 Ala. 468 , it is said : “ It would indeed be a strange anomaly, if a contract made in violation of a statute, and prohibited by a penalty, could be enforced in the courts of the same country whose laws are thus trampled on and set at defiance.” — Shippey v. Eastwood, 9 Ala. 198 ; Milton v. Haden, 32 Ala. 30 ; Woods v. Armstrong, 54 Ala. 150 ; Renfro v. Loyd, 64 Ala. 94 .

1885In O'Donnell v. Sweeny, 5 Ala. 468 , it is said : “ It would indeed be a strange anomaly, if a contract made in violation of a statute, and prohibited by a penalty, could be enforced in the courts of the same country whose laws are thus trampled on and set at defiance.” — Shippey v. Eastwood, 9 Ala. 198 ; Milton v. Haden, 32 Ala. 30 ; Woods v. Armstrong, 54 Ala. 150 ; Renfro v. Loyd, 64 Ala. 94 .