Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/350

338 FEDERAIi REPORTER. �in support of the point is that as the moneys so espencled were paid ont at the request of the defendants, the law will imply a promise to repay them, and that it is not necessary to go behind such request and implied obligation, and show the charaeter of the employment which made the expenditure necessary ; and Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat. 258, and Plant- ers' Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall. 483, are relied on in support of the plaintiff's claim to recover the moneys he has actually paid. Of the first-named case it is sufficient to say that it holds no more than that if an illegal act is not the considera- tion of a contract, and is entireiy disconnected from it, the con- tract is valid, though the occasion for making it arose out of the existence of the illegal act. In the opinion of the court various cases arising in England are cited, ail or most of •whioh were cases where there were new and subsequent con- tracts between the parties, not stipulating a prohibited act, and entireiy disconnected from a previous illegal act, although they were contracts for the repayment of money originally advanced in satisfaction of an unlawful transaction ; and in which cases it was held that such new, subsequent, and inde- pendent contracts might be sustained in a court of justice; and the point of law decided in the principal case is that a subsequent, independent contract, founded on a new consid- eration, is not 50 contaminated by an illegal act which lies back of the contract itself as to render it unworthy of enforce- ment by the court. �The case of the Planters' Bank v. Union Bank was similar in principle. It was there held that "though an illegal con- tract will not be enforccd by the courts, yet * * • where such a contract has been executed by the parties themselves, and the illegal object has been accomplished, the money or thing which was the priee of it may he a legal consideration between the parties for a promise, express or implied, and that the court will not unravel the transaction to discover its origin." The alleged illegal acis in question in the case cited were not acts involving moral turpitude. They were not acts mala in se. One question involved and illustrating the char- aeter of the case was whether an action would lie for the pro* ����